Related
Hi XDA-Samsung Users,
I've been a member of XDA since Jan last year. I went from owning a Nexus One to a Samsung Galaxy S i9000. The reason for the change was for the better specs and superior hardware of the Samsung Galaxy.
The phone is an incredible piece of machinery, but is severely hampered by the modifications that Samsung makes to the Android OS. I admit that the codec support within TouchWiz is impressive, but too much of the core framework of the phone is inefficient and sluggish.
Even using the latest release of unofficial firmware Samsung, Android 2.2.1 (JPY), there is still the occasional hang and the missing RAM (which is there somewhere, but not for user applications).
Samsung is mostly to blame, but there is also a quality control element that Google should be responsible for.
I have prepared an open letter that I sent to Android via Google Press and then forwarded on to Samsung for their reference. This were all through publicly available channels so will have to filter through customer service centers and the like.
I'm not expecting much, Google appears to use Amazon's customer service approach, "No customer service is good customer service".
But would like to post it here to hopefully get it out into the wilderness.
I tweeted it here http://twitter.com/#!/ibproud/status/27528781828722688
and would appreciate if you agreed with the content to retweet it. Hopefully it should give it a bit more weight.
It would be interesting to get the communities feedback on how mature they believe Android is.
Do they need to keep trying to make everyone happy or can they start to use the weight of their OS to get manufacturers to align the user experience?
Dear Android Team,
I am writing this letter to air my frustrations and to hopefully get some peace of mind that your strategy for Android will resolve some of the main issues plaguing the platform.
I have now been with Android for over 12 months. I used to be an iPhone user, but couldn’t stand the walled garden that Apple put me in. I couldn’t download directly to the phone, replace the messaging app or sync wirelessly. I went to Android because I wanted the freedom to use my phone more as a desktop replacement than as a phone/mp3 player.
When I joined the Android family (January 2010), I started with the Google Nexus One. I was so keen to get into the Android community I didn’t even wait for it to be on sale in Australia to get it, thus I hit eBay and bought it outright.
I was very pleased with the platform but could still see a few rough edges around the Operating System. It had the usability I was looking for but was lacking the polish I had grown use to with Apple. There was good news on the horizon with an Éclair update that would give the already beautiful phone a nudge in the right direction. As I was in Australia and the phone wasn’t here yet, I had to push the update through myself, after seeing how easy this was and getting the feeling of being a little phone hacker, I was hooked, I started preaching Android to the masses. Australia is still building momentum for the platform and it’s taking some time. Most of the major carriers stock between 4-6 Android devices, most of which are low end or outdated in the overseas markets.
I follow all the key players in the industry through Twitter and have a majority of Google News trackers picking up articles with android related words. I have also now converted my Wife to Android (HTC Desire Z, also not available in Aus) and I picked up the Samsung Galaxy S and gave my sister the Nexus One. The problem I face now is that I’ve run out of money and can’t go out and buy a new Android phone just to be up to date with the latest Android OS (Gingerbread), this would also be the case for most consumers. The Nexus S is so similar to my current hardware that I must be able to leverage the extra performance from the update.
But alas, we reach the major problem with the platform. Fragmentation. I’m not referring to the Fragmentation of the various app stores and apps available based on different OS versions but more to the Fragmentation of the OS based on the custom skins and manufacturer update cycles. The open platform that is closed at 2 levels, Manufactures and Carriers. I will continue to buy my phones outright as it gives me the freedom and flexibility to upgrade my plans as better ones become available. This always guarantees that I’m free from the bloatware that is preloaded on most Carrier bought phones and free from 1 of the barriers to the true AOSP experience. The next barrier is one that is running rampant in the interwebs rumour mill at the moment and that’s manufacturer updates and in my case I refer to Samsung.
Samsung Galaxy S phones come loaded with Android 2.1, most of them internationally are running Android 2.2 and just recently as select group of the devices is getting Android 2.2.1. This is now a month after Android 2.3 was released. For Samsung I would consider this largely negligent, considering they had the opportunity to work with Google to build a Google Experience Phone (Nexus S). The specs of this phone are so similar to the Galaxy range that a port shouldn’t be too difficult. I understand that there are a lot of constraints and dependencies in the development cycle that could cause delays as well as manufacturers agendas (mostly in unit sales). It is great that Samsung have sold so many devices globally but at a cost of the user experience as well as potential damages to long term retention.
I understand the Open nature of Android and the push to encourage manufacturers to put there own spin on the platform, but Android is getting bigger and more mature, it doesn’t need to be High school girl bending to the whims and peer pressure from the carriers and manufacturers.
There are a team of Devs in Germany who are working to port CyanogenMod 7 (Gingerbread) to Galaxy S i9000, but these guys have now spent over four months just trying to get through Samsungs drivers. The team didn’t start just to customise the phone but to actually make the phone work properly, I of course refer to the RFS lag issue and Samsungs modification to the framework that slowed it down. The goal of the team is to maximise the potential of the hardware and operating system.
It would be great to see some muscle from Google thrown into the mix, there doesn’t need to be requirements dictated, but maybe ethics encouraged.
There seems to be a few options here:
- Encourage device manufacturers to share their drivers, if it is too sensitive to share at least work with the community to help them do it themselves.
- Start to break down the way the platform is customised so that way the manufactures (Samsung/HTC/Motorola) skin the platform can sit a layer above the core code, thus be a quick implementation/customisation to get their skins working.
- Get each manufacturer to offer the AOSP experience to advanced users. This can be done through an agreement between the user and manufacture that states this will void the warranty and have its own terms and conditions.
- This last one is a long stretch, but how about taking all the manufacturers drivers into a repository, the way Windows do updates. When a new Android version is developed the drivers can be updated or incorporated and be packaged out through the Android SDK.
I may be completely off the mark. I’m not a developer and couldn’t pretend to know what effort is involved at any stage of the process, from building Android to rolling it out into the latest and greatest phone. The one thing I am though is an End User, a person that wants my phone to do more, to get close to being a desktop replacement.
Maybe I’m also being a bit idealistic.
I hope the Android platform continues to flourish and for it to become the Windows of the mobile era.
Sincerely,
Irwin Proud
E: [email protected]
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's really an excellent summary. Consider there're even more black sheeps out there. For example Sony Ericcson which ones recently made a statement like Android is their favourite Smartphone OS and left Symbian in Nokias hands.
But we found also the good ones like HTC, which every Manufacturer should have HTC as its Paragon concerning Android Software Development.
Great write-up; I agree 100%
I agree with your post fully, and concur that the Windows Phone 7 model for OS updates is more efficient, and strikes a happy medium between iOS and Android's approach to upgrades. However it is also more restrictive in terms of handset hardware limitations
I suppose the idea is that customers should vote with their wallets and buy from companies with good software and firmware support. The problem with that is a majority of phone users (android or otherwise) are technically savvy enough to take such support into consideration when looking at the latest and greatest fancy phone in a store. We could all buy the Nexus One or Nexus S only, but this too is restrictive to the customer as other phones offer more/different features
my 2 cents worth:
I agree on your points - but I'd skip the first few paragraphs if I were the one who write the letter. Other than that, thank you for making the effort.
What exactly are you hoping to achieve with this letter? Google has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that samsung don't want to update their phones. In these type of situations it's just better to vote with your wallet and buy another manufacturer's phone next time and let Samsung know why you don't want to use their phones in the future.
Writing letters like these is just a waste of time imho.
What Google should do?
Toss3 said:
What exactly are you hoping to achieve with this letter? Google has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that samsung don't want to update their phones. In these type of situations it's just better to vote with your wallet and buy another manufacturer's phone next time and let Samsung know why you don't want to use their phones in the future.
Writing letters like these is just a waste of time imho.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Please allow me to politely disagree. Google can do a lot about this and they have done this also. When I say they have done this - I am talking about not having Market application on Android OSes which come on non-phone hardware.
Google should put similar restrictions for loosley coupled skins, upgradable drivers. I had been giving this a lot of thought lately. I will sum up my thoughts with above letter as above:-
i) Device manufacturer skinning - Google should mandate that it should be just another APK within AOSP and users should be given a choice to turn it off.
ii) Device Drivers - Google should mandate there should be a better way of installing device drivers - similar to what we have in MS Windows (MS Windows is an excellent model of how hardware device should be handled - this lead to the exponential growth Windows is enjoying now).
iii) Android OS Update - If Google can achieve the above two, then the choice to upgrade the OS should be at user discretion. Of course, Google should mandate that there is OTA availble as an option. And obviously this OTA would be served by Google, not by device manufacturers. This would also free up time, effort and cash spent by device manufacturers in upgrading the OS.
So this is in the best of interest of everybody.
These restrictions if put in place, would free us all from this phenomena of running outdated OS.
Not sure what ti say on this one. It's true that Samsung has failed on some levels, however I must say that this is the first phone that has allowed me to get to know so much about the internals of the Android OS.
Modifying kernels, ROM's, reading about different file-systems etc... it's not a thing for the common user but I expect the people on this forum to be interested in such things.
Ok, if Samsung had done it right, we may have discussed these things anyway but it would've drawn less attention as people would not be looking for solutions to their problems.
But of course we have to strive to quality for everyone and this letter may just open some people's eyes at both Google and Samsung.
Thank you so far for the feedback.
poundesville said:
my 2 cents worth:
I agree on your points - but I'd skip the first few paragraphs if I were the one who write the letter. Other than that, thank you for making the effort.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Remember most members of XDA would be a cut above the average user. The reason this letter was written the way it was, was to demonstrate that I am a typical end user. Although I would consider myself leaning slightly to the more advanced side I wrote the letter based on a very general experience of the platform, an experience a lot of consumers would go through.
Toss3 said:
What exactly are you hoping to achieve with this letter? Google has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that samsung don't want to update their phones. In these type of situations it's just better to vote with your wallet and buy another manufacturer's phone next time and let Samsung know why you don't want to use their phones in the future.
Writing letters like these is just a waste of time imho.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What am I trying to achieve with this letter?
I really don’t know, but it helps to just get the thoughts out there.
With approximately 300,000 activations daily, I don’t think Android sees the true reflection of how their platform is received.
When the Galaxy range of phones was released in the US, they would have been seen as the closest thing to an iPhone that non-AT&T customers could get. So sales and activations shouldn’t be seen as the indicator of clever consumers or consumers wanting an open platform, but of consumers who wanted an iPhone but for the various reasons didn’t want to go with AT&T.
Remember: The international Samsung Galaxy is the only Android phone I know of that looks more like an iPhone than any other phone.
What I would really like to see is, that annually google will release a major version of Android. So V1, V2, V3, etc…. the mobile manufacturers commit to any minor or incremental updates per major version. So if Google says they are releasing Android 2.4 then they are saying to the manufacturer that this version will also work on any phone that currently supports v2.1 to v2.3.
As more and more people move to smartphones and tablets, more and more will we see hackers, spammers, botnets and so on attempt to access our devices. If we can’t have the latest updates that close any open holes then our phones become a huge liability.
Pierreken said:
Not sure what ti say on this one. It's true that Samsung has failed on some levels, however I must say that this is the first phone that has allowed me to get to know so much about the internals of the Android OS.
Modifying kernels, ROM's, reading about different file-systems etc... it's not a thing for the common user but I expect the people on this forum to be interested in such things.
Ok, if Samsung had done it right, we may have discussed these things anyway but it would've drawn less attention as people would not be looking for solutions to their problems.
But of course we have to strive to quality for everyone and this letter may just open some people's eyes at both Google and Samsung.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not really sure if Samsung has failed as such, but have put too much focus on unit sales rather than quality control and great user experience. They started releasing different iterations and modifications to the same phone without considering that each minor tweak to the hardware would mean more resources to develop updates and maintain each device.
I also agree that without Samsung I would know very little about linux filesystems, kernel and custom roms, but shouldn't all of these be more to push the phone above it's limits and not to just get it working properly?
There's nothing wrong with knowing the advanced stuff, however it shouldn't be a necessity.
The problem ironically is that Android is open source. I agree wit the letter above, but I can;t see how you can stop manufacturers doing what they want.
Also the Drivers being proprietary isn't going to change and device manufacturers aren't going to suddenly start releasing their closed driver sources.
Agreed Google should stand up and restrict the Skins to a single APK that can be removed, this would stop all the associated problems with HTC and Samsung skinning too deep in to the OS that it becomes impossible to remove it. The problem with that is, then any manufacturers APK will be installable on any phone. Which is something we know they don't want.
We already know Androids biggest downfall and so does Google. Fragmentation.
I believe once Google has the strong position they want and users demand Android when they buy a new phone, they will start to put their foot down and try to enforce standardisation across Manufacturers, but until they get to what they feel is that point, we're stuck.
Anyway much luck with the letter, I hope someone who matters get's to see it.
Logicalstep
From the official CM blog:
It’s been awhile since the last update and I just wanted to let everyone know about our progress with CM9. As I mentioned in the previous update, Android 4.0 contains many internal changes that require updated graphics drivers. Unfortunately, these drivers are almost always closed-source and don’t appear until a device or devkit is released with them. For many devices, our hands are tied. Some very clever workarounds have gone into CM9, but we’re still blocked on some subsystems like the camera.
Since Android 4.0 is such a major change from 2.3, we started with a fresh codebase from Google and have been forward-porting features from CM7 with an eye on design and better integration. This is a somewhat time-consuming process, but it allows us to rethink everything. We’ve eliminated the CMParts app, instead choosing to add our custom features directly into the main settings. We are also taking a “just works” approach when it comes to configuration- CM7 had too many options that just weren’t widely used. We hope to achieve a good balance between tweakability and a great out-of-the-box experience. I want your phone or tablet to feel like it should have come with CM9.
Currently, you can compile CM9 for a small number of devices- notably the Samsung Galaxy Nexus and Nexus S, the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 (Wi-Fi and T-Mobile versions), the HP Touchpad and Motorola Xoom. The next devices to show up will likely be a whole array of Samsung phones (Exynos chipset), with devices based on the Qualcomm MSM8660 and 7×30 chipsets to follow. It’s still unclear if we can provide support for the QSD8x50 family of devices (Nexus One, HTC Evo, etc), but the answer almost always turns out to be “yes” for these kinds of things.
As our hardware support improves, I’ll keep this blog updated. As much as we’d like to stay ahead of the manufacturers, it may be a tie this time Thanks for the continued support, and please consider dropping us a buck or two using the link at the bottom of the page if you enjoy CyanogenMod.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While it doesn't say specifically, it looks like we'll be getting official CM9 support!
The day that is released (stable) will mark the day of my first non-stock flash of the Note.
I just released my first Android game, and now as I continue to learn about marketing it, one question I never thought of before:
I have two versions of the app, one for tablets that I call the "HD" version and one for phones. I did this since I wanted to charge more for the tablet version.
But now I am wondering if having two versions will affect marketing negatively:
- Less reviews since they are split
- Less download count per apk
- Above will affect search rankings in stores
- Always including two app links in any marketing I do
Since I could've gone with one version (and just had logic for two IAP tiers in the game), I am wondering now about if I made a mistake.
Anyone else have any thoughts or experience with this?
I don't want to spam my game since I'm new here, so only if someone asks what it is will I mention it.
If the only reason was different price, I fear you made the wrong decision, and you already know why.
Is there any marketing or statistical background in the "different price for the tablet version" choice?
Most apps and games fork a different apk only if they want to have a free version. Better yet, they do in-app purchases, so the apk can be just one.
marozu said:
I just released my first Android game, and now as I continue to learn about marketing it, one question I never thought of before:
I have two versions of the app, one for tablets that I call the "HD" version and one for phones. I did this since I wanted to charge more for the tablet version.
But now I am wondering if having two versions will affect marketing negatively:
- Less reviews since they are split
- Less download count per apk
- Above will affect search rankings in stores
- Always including two app links in any marketing I do
Since I could've gone with one version (and just had logic for two IAP tiers in the game), I am wondering now about if I made a mistake.
Anyone else have any thoughts or experience with this?
I don't want to spam my game since I'm new here, so only if someone asks what it is will I mention it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think simultaneously having two different versions (one for tablet and phone) of an app is possible through A/B testing. Although, it is quite cumbersome to do it by coding, it would be quite sensible to use a visual A/B testing platform. There are a few of them out there (appiterate, useartisan)
This way you do not lose out on the negative points you have mentioned.
It looks like Marshmallow is following the usual pattern of Android "x.0" alpha release to the public, followed by "x.0.1" beta release with initial defect ('bug") corrections starting with Nexus beta testers (I.e. Nexus users in general).
Reading about the MM 6.0 problems on MXPE, I'm sitting out the 6.0 alpha testing on the sideline with LP 5.1.1. Most trouble-free phone I've had yet, and I don't yet need the only compelling feature I see with MM on the MXPE (T-Mobile Band 12 support).
Any noises yet about MM beyond 6.0.1? (I know I can look for this elsewhere too, but thinking maybe some of the XDA community may have inside info from the Android community.)
TIA...
The marshmallow update give me some new features and better battery life (though I do own the X Style, not pure). Unless you are dead set on being intentionally obtuse, then this isn't considered an alpha update.
Also the 6.0.1 update is quite minor, the largest change being some ART performance improvements, the rest is adding bands to the Nexus line and some emoji's: http://www.androidheadlines.com/2015/12/google-posts-android-6-0-1-changelog.html
I know the label "alpha" is not not the official label for something like 6.0. But with so many substantial defects, and multiple forthcoming revisions to correct those defects a certainty, that's really what it is IMO. Maybe "public release alpha" would be a better description, since pre-release revisions go through even more defect-ridden levels including pre-release alpha, prior to public release.
Similar situation with previous Android versions, and in fact most software foisted on the public these days (I'm looking at you, Microsoft and Apple). Look at Lollipop and the multiple public release revisions it took to iron out most of the substantial defects, finally, with 5.1.1.
6.0.1 is not just "...some ART performance improvements, the rest is adding bands to the Nexus line and some emoji's...", it also includes defect corrections. (Bluetooth, anyone?) And if the changelog doesn't list a significant number of defect corrections, that doesn't necessarily mean it is already polished at 6.0.1. The fragmented Android ecosystem and separation between Google, phone manufacturers, carriers, and users guarantees a plethora of various non-trivial defects in the ecosystem, many of which Google will address only slowly or even never for most phones.
For example, the memory leak defect in LP was not fixed until 5.1.1. How may revisions and months did that take? How many phones still run pre-5.5.1 with this defect?
One reason I bought the MXPE was the idea that it would be one of the first to get the updates. That turned out to be overly optimistic. It looks like Nexus is the only one still close enough to the source to get timely updates, and it also looks like Google is not pursuing Android defect corrections with any kind of urgency at all nowadays, maybe because the hardware ecosystem is becoming way too diverse to adequately support any more (or maybe because the profits roll in no matter what). Motorola phones, with the Moto alterations to Android, outsider status with carriers, and now hollowed-out Motorola support, appear to be no closer to adequate Android support from Google than any other non-Nexus phone.
"Obtuse"? A "bug" is a euphemism for a defect. Let's stop being obtuse, and call it what it is.
Any other info also appreciated.
You're being obtuse by insisting that we're all public alpha testers.
You obviously have no idea about software development, nor about Android Open Source development. Not your fault, but running your mouth is.
You bemoan the memory leak fix took several revisions to fix. So, you think that Google dedicated the whole team to fixing that one bug? What then? No other bugfixes or features are introduced in the meantime? The likely case is (and this is from experience) that bug took some revisions to fix, in the meantime, Google were also pushing ahead with other fixes. Regardless to what the uneducated (about SW development), throwing 15 developers onto one problem doesn't solve it any quicker. 5.0.1 came, adn 5.0.2 came, then 5.1 came in the meantime. While that memory leak was being worked on, more releases come fixing other things. Be grateful they didn't listen to you and leave it at 5.0 for several months while they fixed one issue.
Whatever bluetooth fixes that you think are in 6.0.1 are pure fantasy, because none exist in AOSP 6.0.1: http://aosp.changelog.to/android-6.0.0_r5-to-android-6.0.1_r1.html <-- That's the FULL changelog of commits between 6.0.0_r5 and 6.0.1_r1.
It is not Google's job to fix a problem in anything other than their own devices. At all. Google's job is to make AOSP run smoothly on Nexus devices and release the source. Samsung, HTC, LG, Motorola et al all take the source code, just like CM, AICP, Slim and the rest do, and make modifications for their devices, using the sources given to them by their hardware partners and themselves. So if BT works in Nexus devices, but not others, then it's not Google's problem (usually). An AOSP issue will persist several devices, including Nexii devices.
Google also have taken on the quite large undertaking of monthly security updates for their devices, which I can tell you will be taking up some of the development teams time (it's what, 3-4 months into that project?).
No software ever released on this planet comes without bugs and issues. This is software development. You can check the status of AOSP development here: https://android-review.googlesource.com/#/q/status:open and feel free to download, code and submit your own features.
MattBooth said:
You're being obtuse by insisting that we're all public alpha testers.
You obviously have no idea about software development, nor about Android Open Source development. Not your fault, but running your mouth is.
You bemoan the memory leak fix took several revisions to fix. So, you think that Google dedicated the whole team to fixing that one bug? What then? No other bugfixes or features are introduced in the meantime? The likely case is (and this is from experience) that bug took some revisions to fix, in the meantime, Google were also pushing ahead with other fixes. Regardless to what the uneducated (about SW development), throwing 15 developers onto one problem doesn't solve it any quicker. 5.0.1 came, adn 5.0.2 came, then 5.1 came in the meantime. While that memory leak was being worked on, more releases come fixing other things. Be grateful they didn't listen to you and leave it at 5.0 for several months while they fixed one issue.
Whatever bluetooth fixes that you think are in 6.0.1 are pure fantasy, because none exist in AOSP 6.0.1: http://aosp.changelog.to/android-6.0.0_r5-to-android-6.0.1_r1.html <-- That's the FULL changelog of commits between 6.0.0_r5 and 6.0.1_r1.
It is not Google's job to fix a problem in anything other than their own devices. At all. Google's job is to make AOSP run smoothly on Nexus devices and release the source. Samsung, HTC, LG, Motorola et al all take the source code, just like CM, AICP, Slim and the rest do, and make modifications for their devices, using the sources given to them by their hardware partners and themselves. So if BT works in Nexus devices, but not others, then it's not Google's problem (usually). An AOSP issue will persist several devices, including Nexii devices.
Google also have taken on the quite large undertaking of monthly security updates for their devices, which I can tell you will be taking up some of the development teams time (it's what, 3-4 months into that project?).
No software ever released on this planet comes without bugs and issues. This is software development. You can check the status of AOSP development here: https://android-review.googlesource.com/#/q/status:open and feel free to download, code and submit your own features.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
t
No new or useful information there. Thanks anyway, despite the ad hominem. I guess that comes with the territory (forums).
Yep, the Google-Android-(independent hardware makers) ecosystem is seriously flawed. Too much disconnect between the OS owner (Google), the hardware makers, the carriers, and the customer. And the first three in the chain (not including the customer) have different incentives/disincentives, and there are a bazillion hardware variations, of course it is broken. We know all this.
Reminds me of the original PC/Windows mess. Except worse because the carriers interpose an additional dysfunctional layer hindering OS updates/support. (Before anyone says "just DIY with one of the many available ROMs, I started this "Q" thread about stock MM, not third party ROMs.)
Still hoping for any useful information on anything happening to fix the MM defects, to get an idea when it might be past public beta and worth installing to MXPE.
TIA...
Tinkerer_ said:
t
No new or useful information there. Thanks anyway, despite the ad hominem. I guess that comes with the territory (forums).
Yep, the Google-Android-(independent hardware makers) ecosystem is seriously flawed. Too much disconnect between the OS owner (Google), the hardware makers, the carriers, and the customer. And the first three in the chain (not including the customer) have different incentives/disincentives, and there are a bazillion hardware variations, of course it is broken. We know all this.
Reminds me of the original PC/Windows mess. Except worse because the carriers interpose an additional dysfunctional layer hindering OS updates/support. (Before anyone says "just DIY with one of the many available ROMs, I started this "Q" thread about stock MM, not third party ROMs.)
Still hoping for any useful information on anything happening to fix the MM defects, to get an idea when it might be past public beta and worth installing to MXPE.
TIA...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What ad hominem? Your uneducated state affects your ability to understand the nature of Android and software development. It's a perfectly legitimate response to your position. You lack the ability to understand and therefore your argument is flawed. I'm not attacking you, I actually tried to give you some insight into how it works, but you're not really interested and would rather insist on this "public beta" bull.
As far as fixing any "defects" you suppose, you haven't actually listed any so no-one is going to be able to help you with temporary work around without a list of what you feel is broken. I also showed you the changelog, so you can do your own homework to see if your supposed defects are fixed in 6.0.1.
The various hardware configurations doesn't even matter because Android is built to deal with it. So long as the hardware vendors of chips and modules support them properly and give out functioning binaries to OEM's, or proper source code, it's irrelevant. The exact opposite of what you said is true, Google has a very close relationship with it's partners (anyone signed up to their Google programs, to preinstall Google apps). The problem is carriers, who really shouldn't have a say in software on the phones, but that seems to be a chiefly North American problem.
Google doesn't need to have any connection to Android users as customers. Google does not sell Android, therefore you are not Google's customer unless you use a Nexus phone. Google sell the Google Experience, with the Nexus. You are Motorola's customer, and you are using Motorola's branched version of Android. Google doesn't owe Motorola any fixes or patches for their device. Motorola must maintain their own device tree and maintain their own relationships with their partners.
EDIT:
Also, Motorola's problem is resources. They have four version of the Moto X 2015 to deal with, three versions of the Moto X 2014, the new X Force, then the various versions of the G and E to deal with, along with two smart watches, and so forth. Their line up is increasing whist I imagine their development team is not. There was outrage (rightly so) when news broke that the Moto G 2015 wasn't getting the MM update, despite being a couple of months old, and Motorola listened and OTA's are rolling out.
I am asking if anyone can offer any info on anything being done to move toward MM revision with the many significant defects of 6.0 corrected. Read the forums, there are way too many defects with 6.0, it is patently a de facto public alpha, and we are tracking the usual pattern where it takes 3 to 5 revisions before an OS major rev is ironed out enough that upgrading will not cause more problems than it fixes.
There are always excuses made for why there are so many defects in software. There is a euphemism for "defect" everybody uses, "bug". Everyone has been making excuses for so long about shoddy workmanship and inadequate testing and correction of software, with the "bug" euphemism to minimize the reality that these are defects, that we are all just to suppose to accept systems ridden with faults without complaint. It's unacceptable. It can be done better. Part of why it doesn't get better is because everybody says "that's just the way it is, deal with it". With mountains of byzantine excuses and even ad hominem attacks (as here).
This thread was not started to start a tit for tat ad hominem back and forth, nor to post long essays detailing excuses for the pathetic status quo of the fragmented Android ecosystem with respect to defect causes and distributions. It was started looking for any info about work being done to fix the stock MM defects. Still seeking info.
TIA.
You should probably check the definition of ad hominem. There was no attack on you as a person, just pointing out that your uneducated state with regards to knowledge about software development affects your ability to call judgement on this.
But you haven't listened to a single word I've said and still maintain a shoddy position, so I would suggest to anyone else who reads this to simply ignore you as a troll.
Tinkerer_ said:
It looks like Marshmallow is following the usual pattern of Android "x.0" alpha release to the public, followed by "x.0.1" beta release with initial defect ('bug") corrections starting with Nexus beta testers (I.e. Nexus users in general).
Reading about the MM 6.0 problems on MXPE, I'm sitting out the 6.0 alpha testing on the sideline with LP 5.1.1. Most trouble-free phone I've had yet, and I don't yet need the only compelling feature I see with MM on the MXPE (T-Mobile Band 12 support).
Any noises yet about MM beyond 6.0.1? (I know I can look for this elsewhere too, but thinking maybe some of the XDA community may have inside info from the Android community.)
TIA...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think we'll close this debate. There are no real "Android" insiders on XDA, so asking for update info which is privy to Google is perhaps somewhat futile.
On a related note, XDA have a few dedicated "Android Fora", such as this complete Category where non-device specific discussion and indeed conjecture takes place. Perhaps you could take a look there and see what transpires?
Thanks
I'm testing and getting a couple donated tablets ready for a group, and one came in that was a SM-T237 (which is pre-KRACK-patches ). So far I have tracked down that it is an Exynos 3470 powered system, different from the Marvell SM-T230, and the Qualcomm Matisse, but I can't find even a code name for this particular device, and I want more information before I try to flash "TWRP for Galaxy Tab 4 Degas" or anything else that may or may not break it. Is it similar to any other tablet for a starting point at least?
Looks like nothing simple anyway. Thinking I'll probably slap a "be careful... vulnerabilities" sticker on this one and send it back with Lollipop, and focus my attention on the probably equally difficult ZenPads, but they have 3GB RAM and I have two of them to spread the justification for the effort over.