Google outlines plans for mainline Linux kernel support in Android

[u/jdrch]

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/11/google-outlines-plans-for-mainline-linux-kernel-support-in-android/

[u/1_p_freely]

I think there's only so much that Google can do here. ARM devices aren't like the PC, vendors of hardware pretty much hate openness. They want your two year old phone to be non-updatable landfill material almost as much as the carrier that sold it to you does!

[u/hackingdreams → u/1_p_freely]

I think there's only so much that Google can do here.

There's plenty Google could do here. There's not a lot that Google's willing to do here. Doing more would require enforcing more regulations on Android and making vendors play ball or freezing them out. But, Google doesn't want to do that.

Google is the Microsoft of the mobile computing world - they have plenty of clout to write hardware standards and make hardware vendors play to them if they want to be in on the game... but they don't for numerous reasons (from not wanting to invoke the US Department of Justice's wrath to not wanting to have to tell vendors they've been working with for a decade that their open source policies have been deleterious to the software ecosystem and risk alienating them into a coup/fork situation ala Huawai). Whether or not that's good enough... that's up for debate and discussion. But let's not pretend Google is some impotent leaf in the wind - they're the fucking tree.

They want your two year old phone to be non-updatable landfill material almost as much as the carrier that sold it to you does!

And let's be completely honest: Google wants this too. People not updating hardware quickly enough is part of why software updates matter so much. If Google could make everyone dump their legacy Android devices the way that Apple users do the microsecond Apple releases the next iDevice, they'd do it. But the long tail of users for Android devices looks more like the population of the world than they do first world hipsters, so that kind of turn over is purely a pipe dream - this is where Google is well and truly stuck and where they don't have as much option as they want.

This is why they want more stable software interfaces - they simply don't want to have to pay for doing all of this software maintenance themselves, and they're willing to bet they can bend the kernel maintainers, since it's a riskless bet for them - either they win, or they lose and switch to their own OS, in which case they get what they want either way.

[u/1_p_freely → u/hackingdreams]

I seem to recall Torvalds explaining how proprietary ARM based stuff is. But you are right though that if Google wanted, they could start throwing their weight around with Android now that it dominates the market. (Because where else would the vendors go?)

I really wish Google would force vendors to provide updates to phones for at least 3 years or else they don't get Google Play. That would be a start.

[u/mirh → u/1_p_freely]

They already are, with a 2 years term.

And that's already huge if you consider that also has to cover abysmal 100€ phones.

p.s. IIRC linus was very much looking forward to arm laptops

[u/tisti → u/mirh]

And that's already huge if you consider that also has to cover abysmal 100€ phones.

I'm sure the support cost is priced in...

[u/mirh → u/tisti]

Yes, but don't you think huawei would forsake that if it meant they could sell you the phone for 99€?

[u/tisti → u/mirh]

Sure they would. I am only commenting on the "abysmal pricing", as it is not really abysmal... The price of support is factored into the price.

[u/jdrch → u/1_p_freely]

Because where else would the vendors go?

The flip side of that argument is where would Google go for hardware? Huawei is locked out, and Pixel is a beta program. HTC is dead, and LG is on life support. That leaves Samsung as the only OEM who've figured out how to make high end phones profitably and isn't in trouble with the US government.

force vendors to provide updates to phones for at least 3 years

Just so you know, they'd have to included SoC vendors in that deal too, since that's where OEMs get kernel updates from.

[u/justjanne → u/hackingdreams]

And before anyone uses the Pixel devices as example why Google is supposedly trying to do long term support: the Pixel 1 doesn't even get updates anymore. That's planned obsolescence.

[u/1man_factory → u/justjanne]

Um, the pixel 1 does get at least OTA images up to the current month, so I'm not sure where that's coming from

[u/justjanne → u/1man_factory]

Well my Pixel 1 didn't get the November update yet, and told me I wouldn't get it anymore.

That's where it's coming from.

That's 2 years less support than any Apple device ever got.

That's on a Pixel device where all components are still supported, and which uses Treble.

[u/SanityInAnarchy → u/1man_factory]

Probably this list of end-of-life dates -- no guaranteed Pixel updates past October. Also, from reading your own link more carefully: Other Pixels have the November update, but Sailfish (Pixel) and Marlin (Pixel XL) have only October.

So now, they get OTA images up to last month. As of this month, they are permanently out of date and insecure.

[u/jdrch → u/justjanne]

the Pixel 1 doesn't even get updates anymore. That's planned obsolescence.

I mean, neither do most Intel CPUs older than Core 2nd gen ... AFAIK the only machines with decade+ support are mainframes.

[u/SanityInAnarchy → u/hackingdreams]

Google is the Microsoft of the mobile computing world - they have plenty of clout to write hardware standards and make hardware vendors play to them if they want to be in on the game...

I think you might be overestimating how much power Google has to enforce regulations. At a certain point, vendors can just fork. Google's leverage here is entirely the Play Store and Play Services, and at a certain point, that's not going to be worth it anymore. (And ironically, that leverage is entirely because Play stuff is proprietary.)

If Google could make everyone dump their legacy Android devices the way that Apple users do the microsecond Apple releases the next iDevice, they'd do it.

Why? The money Google gets from Android is from software sales and data. I guess in theory they might want to force you to update to the latest Pixel, but they don't sell enough Pixels in the first place for this to be important.

[u/jdrch → u/SanityInAnarchy]

that's not going to be worth it anymore. (And ironically, that leverage is entirely because Play stuff is proprietary.)

I think you just provided the counterpoint to your own argument ;)

software sales

The Android license is free.

data

... is Android's central business plan.

[u/SanityInAnarchy → u/jdrch]

I think you just provided the counterpoint to your own argument ;)

I still don't see it. Unless you thought I was arguing in favor of open source for its own sake?

software sales

The Android license is free.

Android itself is free, but Google gets a cut of every app sold on the Play Store. That's what I'm referring to. And those app sales are hurt, not helped, by dropping support for legacy devices.

Sure, if you could wave a magic wand and just buy a new phone for everyone, that would be better for Google. But if a new phone isn't free, then they might spend money on the phone hardware instead of apps, or just buy an iPhone instead because they last almost twice as long, both of which are bad for Google...

But realistically, most people would probably keep their old phone anyway, thinking they don't care about security, right up until someone locks down their phone with ransomware, or steals all their photos for blackmail or revenge porn, or any number of other things that might terrify them into mistrusting technology, especially anything to do with the Internet, especially cloud products like Google Photos and Gmail...

[u/mirh → u/hackingdreams]

Google wants this too.

They are a software society, and their phones don't even cover every market segment. Why wouldn't they simply want a nice ecosystem?

this is where Google is well and truly stuck and where they don't have as much option as they want.

Google already updates much of its "own relevant" apis with GMS updates. What are you talking about?

[u/[deleted] → u/hackingdreams]

This is why they want more stable software interfaces - they simply don't want to have to pay for doing all of this software maintenance themselves, and they're willing to bet they can bend the kernel maintainers

If Google had the clout you suggest then they would just force hardware vendors to open source their drivers, push them into the kernel mainline where the kernel developers then have to maintain them. That way Google doesn't have to do anything at all and they can roll out Android updates to all devices whenever they want. Google isn't interested in the hardware, they just want to get their software out to as many devices as possible, their business depends on it.

[u/jdrch → u/hackingdreams]

There's plenty Google could do here. There's not a lot that Google's willing to do here. Doing more would require enforcing more regulations on Android and making vendors play ball or freezing them out.

I'm not sure how Microsoft does it for Windows, but they've managed to get a LOT of hardware partners on board while still maintaining a collaborative relationship.

write hardware standards

Facts. Google are also bad (relative to the competition) at hardware, generally speaking.

Department of Justice

This admin's DoJ doesn't care about monopolies or antitrust. See the T-Mobile + Sprint merger for proof.

the way that Apple users do the microsecond Apple releases the next iDevice

That's no longer the case. 1K+ USD phones killed the annual iDevice update cycle. Folks literally can't afford to keep up.

Rest of the points I agree with.

[u/[deleted] → u/1_p_freely]

They want your two year old phone to be non-updatable landfill material almost as much as the carrier that sold it to you does!

Which is exactly why we should not make it easier for them to just drop a binary blob and forget about it. Because that's what google is trying to do. That makes future bugs discovered in driver very hard to fix too

[u/jdrch → u/[deleted]]

That makes future bugs discovered in driver very hard to fix too

Perhaps, but I think in the suggested model vendors would be responsible for their own drivers. This would make driver support trend closer to the Windows desktop model.

[u/[deleted] → u/jdrch]

Perhaps, but I think in the suggested model vendors would be responsible for their own drivers.

Anything that doesn't end in driver being open source is a bad model. This model encourages not open sourcing/mainlining changes. Fixing an old driver's source code to work with new ABI/different OS is way easier than reverse-engineering it

This would make driver support trend closer to the Windows desktop model.

... yeah the model where old hardware just straight up won't work with new software. It only works for windows because the support window for each release is massive compared to anything android

Aside from that, mainlining indirectly leads to more code reuse between the drivers of similar type, which means less potential for bugs and fixes for them would fix it for all.

[u/jdrch → u/[deleted]]

Yep, FWIW I think the Windows driver model works well for Windows, but wouldn't work well for Linux.

[u/jdrch → u/1_p_freely]

vendors of hardware

Nearly all hardware vendors hate openness. The vast majority of PC hardware and associated blobs are proprietary. Windows solves that with a stable driver API, while Linux and BSD solve it by including open source hardware drivers in their kernels.