Lead Android developer thinks a 5 month wait for an update is 'very rea


Recommended Posts

Lead Android developer thinks a five-month wait for an update is 'very reasonable'

Jean-Baptiste Queru, technical lead on the Android Open Source Project (AOSP), has revealed his opinion on the current state of the project and the lengthy waits users face for updates. In a Google+ post, Queru congratulates Sony on its Android 4.0 update for the Tablet S and describes the Japanese company as being the biggest contributor to Android, leaving everyone else playing catch-up. By contributing code to the project, Sony should be able to ensure timely updates for its own devices as well as helping out the community at large. So why the long wait for Android 4.0?

Queru actually thinks the five months it took Sony to update the tablet from 3.0 Honeycomb to 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich is "very reasonable," as the two Android versions are "quite different" under the hood. He also adds that the differences between Gingerbread and Ice Cream Sandwich are huge, and so phone upgrades are likely to take longer. When asked why Asus updated its tablet much faster than Sony, Queru states that Asus worked together with Nvidia. Given the Transformer Prime's status as the flagship Tegra 3 tablet, it comes as no surprise that both parties would throw as many resources as they can at the tablet to ensure a timely update.

What really bothers Queru is that some Google-engineered devices still don't have the latest version of its own OS, thanks to delays in the carrier approval process. He's very glad that Google is back to selling devices directly, and will be "even happier" when he sees the program expanded to more countries.

Source: The Verge

If he agrees that Asus and Nvidia churned out update very fast for Transformer Prime, why the F*** others take so long? Does he know that he is contradicting himself?

nVidia and Asus worked together a lot, most development was parallel. Most other manufacturers don't get access to all needed drivers and HAL-stuff from their SoC-source that fast, and then it obviously takes a while to port all the included apps. That, and most companies (looking at you, Samsung) are just lazy.

Sony and Sony Mobile/Sony Ericsson), as it has been said, contribute a lot of their work to the Android source code, and they have very good developers. They improved memory management on ICS over the "standard" edition, and their software is rock solid. Good job Sony!

Sony Mobile is also the only manufacturer to date that actually completely reskinned their Android interface to match the ICS guidelines. With the 4.0 update (and on the Xperia S) all icons and almost all interface graphics got a major overhaul to fit Holo.

(For the record, Sony tablets are made by the Sony VAIO team, Sony Mobile (/Ericsson) Xperia smartphones are made by the SEMC (Sony (Ericsson) Mobile Communications) team. They work completely independent, but both of them contribute a lot of code to Android. They are slowly merging some development in common areas (mostly media-related such as Bravia Engine, Music Player, ...), but all of that is in a very early stage.)

If he agrees that Asus and Nvidia churned out update very fast for Transformer Prime, why the F*** others take so long? Does he know that he is contradicting himself?

I assume it's because ASUS goes about Android the proper way. They are putting a few apps and widget that are theirs but their Android installation is pretty much stock which makes them updated it very fast. I just got an upgrade on ASUS Transformer 1 to the latest ICS only few days ago. They are super fast.

  • 1 month later...

oh really when's the last time you had a blackberry or Symbian update???

Last month. In fact, at this point my BlackBerry Torch 9860 received more updates than my HTC Legend ever did.

I still loathe BlackBerry OS 7.1 though.

I assume it's because ASUS goes about Android the proper way. They are putting a few apps and widget that are theirs but their Android installation is pretty much stock which makes them updated it very fast. I just got an upgrade on ASUS Transformer 1 to the latest ICS only few days ago. They are super fast.

ASUS just mash together anything and send it out, they released 3 consecutive ICS builds for the TF101 to fix a major random reboot and sleep of death bug present since ICS day 1 and each update made things worse, one of them killed the volume and all of them made the bugs happen more frequently

They obviously either don't test their releases or they couldn't care less and send out useless crap anyway

They got together LOADS of (2) beta testers out of the 40+ that asked to be testers on XDA and then completely ignored them when they reported that the beta update did not fix the bugs, and sent them out to everyone anyway, three times.

Their amazing story they were telling everyone was "We can't replicate it"

How can you not replicate something that is happening to 99% of your customers when you own every revision of the TF101

I swore never to buy asus again after this, my TF101 was a paper weight for most of this year

oh really when's the last time you had a blackberry or Symbian update???

*chirp* * chirp*

The Belle update just came out a few months ago and Carla is due soon, so that's both your points invalidated. (mainly because you didn't bother to research them)

oh really when's the last time you had a blackberry or Symbian update???

Considering Android and Windows Phone are both playing catch up on even basic features, I wouldn't complain much about slow Symbian updates.

It's not so long ago Android people were all "Ooh myyyyy" over tethering. It made me laugh myself to tears.

I'll say it again Android would be soo much better if the adopted the iOS approach to OS updates... F*ck the carrier push it all out, that is... if the vendors get their drivers done in time....

I'll say it again Android would be soo much better if the adopted the iOS approach to OS updates... F*ck the carrier push it all out, that is... if the vendors get their drivers done in time....

That doesn't change anything about different manufacturers slapping on their custom interfaces and stuff.

Android will never be successful unless the versions can be updated quickly amongst different devices. Don't even get me started on it taking the manufacture so long to release their version because it is time consuming. If they would [***Motorola I'm singling you out for my Xyboard***] allow their devices to be unlocked and release their software in open source standards, then we'd have releases within weeks with such groups as Cyanogen.

So no, the guy is a jackass, I think a 5 month rate is very unacceptable.

Considering Android and Windows Phone are both playing catch up on even basic features, I wouldn't complain much about slow Symbian updates.

It's not so long ago Android people were all "Ooh myyyyy" over tethering. It made me laugh myself to tears.

Firstly, you do realise that had little to do with Google and a lot to do with carriers, right? And secondly, what basic features is Android missing?

I'll say it again Android would be soo much better if the adopted the iOS approach to OS updates... F*ck the carrier push it all out, that is... if the vendors get their drivers done in time....

Do you even have a clue how Android works? The code for the OS is pushed into the open source projects, and the developers build and customise it for their devices from source. Google have NO CONTROL over how updates are pushed they just provide the OS. There's no conceivable way for them to forcibly update devices they didn't manufacture.

Android will never be successful unless the versions can be updated quickly amongst different devices. Don't even get me started on it taking the manufacture so long to release their version because it is time consuming. If they would [***Motorola I'm singling you out for my Xyboard***] allow their devices to be unlocked and release their software in open source standards, then we'd have releases within weeks with such groups as Cyanogen.

So no, the guy is a jackass, I think a 5 month rate is very unacceptable.

56% of the smartphone market worldwide says otherwise

Android will never be successful unless the versions can be updated quickly amongst different devices. Don't even get me started on it taking the manufacture so long to release their version because it is time consuming. If they would [***Motorola I'm singling you out for my Xyboard***] allow their devices to be unlocked and release their software in open source standards, then we'd have releases within weeks with such groups as Cyanogen.

So no, the guy is a jackass, I think a 5 month rate is very unacceptable.

You're thinking like a geek and not like an average consumer. The average user won't give a toss about updates if the device already works well for them, most people that I know that have owned iPhones didn't even understand what the software updates were for and i'd wager the situation isn't much different for Android and BB users

It definitely lowers the value of a device.

While I never wait a single minute for an update on my iPhone, I always get all the features for the time that I own my phone. My phone is used at 100% of its potential for all the time that I own it.

On the other hand, on Android, if you?re always 4 months late, it?s like your device is used at 80% of its potential for 12 complete months in its life cycle, if your phone is good for 3 years and a new version is released yearly.

No thanks, Android. You see, deploying software updates right away on every phone is not good. It?s nothing, it?s neutral. But making users wait for updates is completely negative.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!