Related
Hello,
Im currently writing an academic paper on android and openness in my master's programme. If all goes well, it will be submitted for a conference soon.
I'm looking for your opinions on having an android device open for operating system level modifications or not. As you may know, some phones have a signed bootloader such as the Motorola Milestone, t-mobile g2 (who made the phone reinstall stock OS when breached), and probably many others. Google however, make their devices open, even though they are sold as consumer devices. Many others do not bother to install circumvention mechanics.
Obviously, the people here will be biased towards allowing modification to the OS, therefore, i would like to get a discussion going, to discern what problems and possibilities you see in the long run for hardware manufacturers.
1. Does the possibility of making OS level modifications affect your willingness to purchase an android product? i.e. do you check if it can be modified before buying? And how much of an impact does it make on your desicion?
2. Why do you think hardware manufacturers put in measures to prevent custom android OS builds to be installed? Put on the corporate hat and try to see their strategy.
3. Do you think manufacturers have anything to gain by making devices open and free for modification, with source code for drivers and the like publically available?
I would really appericiate your opinions and discussion!
1. Does the possibility of making OS level modifications affect your willingness to purchase an android product? i.e. do you check if it can be modified before buying? And how much of an impact does it make on your desicion?
As a beginner app developer, this has yet to bother me. I do enjoy being able to add apps that add functionality to my phone but I haven't bothered to get down into the "root" area. So no I do not check nor does it impact my decision...I own a Samsung fascinate by the way
2. Why do you think hardware manufacturers put in measures to prevent custom android OS builds to be installed? Put on the corporate hat and try to see their strategy.
My opinion on measures to prevent changes is all about PR and performance. If enough people hacked a phone and the hack caused the phone to work below is ability then the only news report you will see is the phone sucks.
3. Do you think manufacturers have anything to gain by making devices open and free for modification, with source code for drivers and the like publically available?
This is also a give and take if question 2 is not of a concern to them, then its def a gain for the company and to all of the developers out there that do search for the best phone and nick pick around until they find it.
Are there enough of those kind of people out there to affect a companies buttom line. Maybe not yet but in another couple of years who knows.
1. Does the possibility of making OS level modifications affect your willingness to purchase an android product? i.e. do you check if it can be modified before buying? And how much of an impact does it make on your desicion?
It hasnt yet been a deciding factor on which device to get, primarily because sooner or later they all get cracked open.
2. Why do you think hardware manufacturers put in measures to prevent custom android OS builds to be installed? Put on the corporate hat and try to see their strategy.
One reason could be that the carriers demand it as a way to keep any revenue that they get from the preinstalled bloatware.
3. Do you think manufacturers have anything to gain by making devices open and free for modification, with source code for drivers and the like publically available?
The percentage of people that actually tinker in this area is very slim, so the manufacturers most likely don't see that as a big market opportunity.
Don't have any answers, but would like to read your paper when done...sounds interesting and a Masters Thesis is always fun to read! LOL
It's not a thesis, just a short article. I might make a survey for it but I need to ask the right questions.
Not all devices get fully customized, root is common, but in my phone for example it is not possible to load a custom kernel, as the bootloader checks for signed code (Motorola's secret key). There's been a massive uproar from the owners of the Milestone, as people didn't expect to be hustled like that when getting an android phone. The main problem is of course, that Motorola takes a long time to release updates. Even as of today, Froyo has still not been released for my phone by Motorola.
While I am not sure about it, I suspect Sony Ericsson X10i owners are in the same boat, and they will get a really rotten deal, seeing as 2.1 has been officially declared the last version the device will recieve. Yet, an enthusiast could release a perfectly fine version of 2.3 if the phone accepted custom firmware and he had access to drivers etc.
So basically, you buy a piece of hardware that is very capable, but The Company decides for you which software you could run.
Imagine if you bought a Windows Vista PC right before Windows 7 was released, and the only way you could get Windows 7 on it was if that particular PC manufacturer released an official update containing all it's bloatware and applications you don't want. Since the update needs to go through all kinds of verifications and approvals, it might be delayed for a half a year, or maybe 9 months, after the new OS release. Why do we accept this on our phones and tablets?
Hi,
1. Does the possibility of making OS level modifications affect your willingness to purchase an android product? i.e. do you check if it can be modified before buying? And how much of an impact does it make on your desicion?
For me personally, yes, most definately. I like to be able to get in and play, see how things work, change stuff. And i think custom ROMs IMO are a big drawcard of Android.
2. Why do you think hardware manufacturers put in measures to prevent custom android OS builds to be installed? Put on the corporate hat and try to see their strategy.
To try and ensure the device works as they want it to. Minimise support costs etc.
3. Do you think manufacturers have anything to gain by making devices open and free for modification, with source code for drivers and the like publically available?
Definately. Encourages improvement of existing features, and development of new stuff beyond the manufacturers initial product scope, which can be integrated in future products.
Android OS its self is an example of this - the developer community is writing apps, logging bugs, and contributing code to the benefit of future releases of Android, which in turn benefits device manufacturers.
- jc
my two cents
1. Does the possibility of making OS level modifications affect your willingness to purchase an android product? i.e. do you check if it can be modified before buying? And how much of an impact does it make on your decision?
>> Personally, I feel like the ability to modify my phone at the core level is something I as a power user can use to tailor my phone's experience in the way I need to make it the most efficient device it can be. This is especially necessary as my phone is my primary connectivity device (I really only use my laptop for things the phone just really isn't capable of handling yet, such as video conversion)
2. Why do you think hardware manufacturers put in measures to prevent custom android OS builds to be installed? Put on the corporate hat and try to see their strategy.
I think this is less the decision of the manufacturers and more of the carriers themselves. This really is because each device has to be tailored to be sold to the average user, rather than power users (read: 85-90% of people who will read this reply) and as a result is designed with an experience in mind. To the suits, anyone who take a phone that is supposed to have a specific experience in mind, and changes that, it becomes a different phone, and anyone who looks at that phone will see that. This means, TMo/HTC can't sell a G2, because everything that my office mates will see when they look at my phone is my android customizations, not a G2. my office mate, who is shopping for a phone, can get an android phone anywhere... but they can only get a /G2/ from TMo/HTC. Similarly, if I like my G2 experience, when i get a new phone, i will be more inclined to continue enjoying that experience with a G3, rather than buying any on sale android phone and making it just like my last one. Hence the need to have a G2 experience on every G2 phone. Just my 2 cents. I am not a businessman, lawyer, or doctor.
3. Do you think manufacturers have anything to gain by making devices open and free for modification, with source code for drivers and the like publically available?
Yes, but nowhere near as much as they can get by keeping their cards close to their hand. see my answer to number 2.
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've done some easy searching and found what might be the actual cause of the Xperia Z3 not being announced as getting Android N with other devices from the Sony line.
Even though we have Android 7.0 previews available and it works fine with a few software bugs that need to be ironed out, the Xperia Z3 will not be getting official Android N.
And heres why:
The problem lies in Google and their Android N requirements.
You might be asking, what do you mean by requirements the device ran the previews just fine!?
Well, Google has introduced new encryption methods in Android N which have certain hardware requirements.
The Snapdragon 800/801 don't have support for some of these newer encryption methods.
Another question you might be asking is, well we don't need these encryption methods, but Google says otherwise.
Their policy is that their encryption methods must be fully running by the time the device setup is done.
So the actual reason for the Z3 not getting Android N is both technical and legal.
In the end, its actually not Sony's fault, Sony is just following the rules which Google put.
Although I don't see any problems for Qualcomm releasing the drivers needed for further development.
We will probably see unofficial Android N on our devices, but at the moment it seems like a far stretch due to Qualcomm not wanting to release drivers.
Sources:
Android Authority
It's exactly full-disk encryption and GG haves Compatibility Definition Document (CDD) for all devices need to run Android N. So easily, Snap 800/801 have feature full-disk encryption, but with this, they do pass Compatibility Test Suite (CTS) but don't meet the CDD because read/write speed. Snap 805 is newer and have module for this feature, so can make it faster.
But, if Sony open our kernel, Snap public your driver, custom rook does not need full-disk encryption at all.
That's all I found about this.
This is just one of many reasons why we can't get N. Opengl 3.1 or Vulkan is also required for certification which only SD 805 and later have. Basically all devices older than SD 805 are sol for future updates. Now Sony could release stockbased build in a zip format through dev program without gapps which wouldn't cause issues with Google
Lets try and keep it in one thread
http://forum.xda-developers.com/z3/general/xperia-z3-wont-android-n-t3446158
Thread closed.
To all those who want to know more about Project Treble please use this thread to discuss about it.
What is Project Treble?
Ans. Treble is the most significant low-level change to the Android platform to date. To simplify heavily, it separates the vendor implementation from the Android framework in an effort to avoid lengthy waits for updates. . Let’s break things down a bit more:
The full update process to bring a new Android version to devices is a long and complex topic.
The “vendor” usually refers to silicon-manufacturers such as Qualcomm, but can also refer to the maker of any other proprietary hardware found in a device. The “device maker” or “OEM” usually needs to wait for the vendor to update their code so the proprietary hardware works with the Android OS framework in a newer version of Android.
However, what is happening with Project Treble is that Google is requiring that any vendor-specific code be separated from the Android OS framework and instead live in its own vendor implementation. Usually this means that there is now a separate /vendor partition on Treble-enabled smartphones that contains a bunch of HALs (Hardware Abstraction Layers).
Furthermore, vendors must implement code that lets the Android OS framework communicate with HALs in a standardized way. This is done via HIDL (HAL Interface Definition Language). With this in place, an OEM can work on an Android update without having to wait on vendors to update their HALs. Theoretically, this should speed up the entire Android update process as vendors can update their code at any time through the Play Store.
For indepth information check out this pagehttps://www.androidauthority.com/project-treble-818225/
Devices with Treble support:
- Essential PH-1
- Google Pixel
- Google Pixel XL
- HTC U11 Plus
- Huawei Honor 8 Pro
- Huawei Mate 9
- Huawei Mate 10 Pro
- Sony Xperia XZ1
- Sony Xperia XZ1 Compact
- Asus Zenfone 4 (ZE554KL)
- Honor V10
- Huawei P10/ P10 Plus
Devices which will ship with Android 8.0 Oreo will be Treble compatible by default.
Older devices will become treble compatible if the OEM creates a vendor partition via OTA update, like the Honor 8 Pro.
Custom Roms:
As of now @phhusson is working hard to make his AOSP rom boot as a fully functional rom on all the Treble supported devices, go check out the rom thread here https://forum.xda-developers.com/pr...evelopment/experimental-phh-treble-t3709659"]
Check Treble Compability
Open a terminal app on your device and simply type the following command:
getprop ro.treble.enabled
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If it returns a boolean value true, your device supports Treble and if false it doesn’t.
[NOTE: New devices with Treble support are launching so its not possible for me to update the supported device list, so they'll not make their name on my list, but you can surely ask about your device on the discussion thread]
My understanding of Treble is, from the *big picture* anyway, that the responsibility for hardware access shifts from Google to the individual device mfgs.
The hope for us is that new versions of Android can be distributed much more rapidly, because testing of new hardware (or changes to existing hdw) won't have to wait for the new OS to be done, and that the interface to the hdw will be separate from the OS.
Another hope would be that a devices 'life span' would increase? (or at least stay current longer).
AsItLies said:
My understanding of Treble is, from the *big picture* anyway, that the responsibility for hardware access shifts from Google to the individual device mfgs.
The hope for us is that new versions of Android can be distributed much more rapidly, because testing of new hardware (or changes to existing hdw) won't have to wait for the new OS to be done, and that the interface to the hdw will be separate from the OS.
Another hope would be that a devices 'life span' would increase? (or at least stay current longer).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Treble means separating the vendor source from the software source, the treble devices will have a separate vendor partition, in which the vendor source will be. Now the manufacturers will only require to make the Software bug free so that the user dosent face any problems in day to day usage. From @phhussons AOSP treble rom we can get a clear picture that by separating the vendor source, the Treble based AOSP roms will run on any Treble compatible device regardless of the SOC/hardware configuration.
venom928 said:
Treble means separating the vendor source from the software source, the treble devices will have a separate vendor partition, in which the vendor source will be. <snip>
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah yes that makes sense, it's not only the hardware source (vendor specific), it's also the vendors software (their mods and bloatware) that will be in the separate partition.
It really does sound as though this should speed up the time it takes for users to get updates of all kinds. It also seems pretty certain, non-Treble enabled devices will fall by the wayside. Doesn't seem there's any way around that?
AsItLies said:
Ah yes that makes sense, it's not only the hardware source (vendor specific), it's also the vendors software (their mods and bloatware) that will be in the separate partition.
It really does sound as though this should speed up the time it takes for users to get updates of all kinds. It also seems pretty certain, non-Treble enabled devices will fall by the wayside. Doesn't seem there's any way around that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For non-treble devices the only way is that the OEMs must release an OTA update which will create a separate Vendor partition, but OEMs won't do(except some recent flagships) that bcz they want sales of newer devices with Treble support. As far as time is concerned, suppose it takes 2-3months for an OEM to build a fully bug free update, but it will require 3-4weeks for the OEM to build that same update
venom928 said:
For non-treble devices the only way is that the OEMs must release an OTA update which will create a separate Vendor partition
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, it seems the consensus is that mfg's won't risk bricking the phones by doing that kind of an OTA update? We'll see fairly soon what they'll do with the older devices.
It's good that google is calling the shots with this and is insisting new Oreo devices have it. It's bad though that devices just a few months old that cost mucho bucks may go without it.
AsItLies said:
Yes, it seems the consensus is that mfg's won't risk bricking the phones by doing that kind of an OTA update? We'll see fairly soon what they'll do with the older devices.
It's good that google is calling the shots with this and is insisting new Oreo devices have it. It's bad though that devices just a few months old that cost mucho bucks may go without it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The honor 8 pro got Treble via OTA because it was one of the best selling device, but some OEMs will prefer not to do that so that customers will shift to newer devices. Like OnePlus could have easily added Treble to atleast 5/5T but they thought of not doing it, just depends upon the OEM
venom928 said:
The honor 8 pro got Treble via OTA because it was one of the best selling device
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow, I did not know that, thanks. I better read more of the Treble threads to keep up to date
AsItLies said:
Wow, I did not know that, thanks. I better read more of the Treble threads to keep up to date
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yep surely
Mate 9 as well
AsItLies said:
Wow, I did not know that, thanks. I better read more of the Treble threads to keep up to date
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mate 9 got treble as well with the Oreo update, major repartitioning as well.
revjamescarver said:
Mate 9 got treble as well with the Oreo update, major repartitioning as well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mate 9 is in the list bro, check OP
revjamescarver said:
Mate 9 got treble as well with the Oreo update, major repartitioning as well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks Neighbor. Huawei is rapidly moving to the top of my list of phone mfg to buy. It doesn't look like the kirin processors have much los support, but with treble... well, it seems previous prerequisites are being turned upside down.
For sure, when one evaluates (buying) a phone, many factors are relevant. But for most (if not all) of us, how long the phone will stay up to date is probably at the top of that list.
Hope the other mfg's follow Huawei's lead here, else we'll have a lot of recently mfg phones with outdated sftwr soon.
AsItLies said:
Thanks Neighbor. Huawei is rapidly moving to the top of my list of phone mfg to buy. It doesn't look like the kirin processors have much los support, but with treble... well, it seems previous prerequisites are being turned upside down.
For sure, when one evaluates (buying) a phone, many factors are relevant. But for most (if not all) of us, how long the phone will stay up to date is probably at the top of that list.
Hope the other mfg's follow Huawei's lead here, else we'll have a lot of recently mfg phones with outdated sftwr soon.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Huawei is the 3rd most fastest growing OEM after Apple and Samsung. What stops me from buying a Honor Device is the Kirin SOC and apps like Google Camera port dosent work on the devices except devices with Snapdragon SOC, so will wait for a device with the specs like the Mi A1 and a 18:9 display
venom928 said:
Huawei is the 3rd most fastest growing OEM after Apple and Samsung. What stops me from buying a Honor Device is the Kirin SOC and apps like Google Camera port dosent work on the devices except devices with Snapdragon SOC, so will wait for a device with the specs like the Mi A1 and a 18:9 display
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very good point. So even with Treble, which SOC (the phone has) will still be relevant in some respects. I have a G6 and think a wide angle lens is da bomb, but could easily do without all the glass 'bling'.
Kirin SoC
venom928 said:
Huawei is the 3rd most fastest growing OEM after Apple and Samsung. What stops me from buying a Honor Device is the Kirin SOC and apps like Google Camera port dosent work on the devices except devices with Snapdragon SOC, so will wait for a device with the specs like the Mi A1 and a 18:9 display
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nothing at all wrong with the Kirin SoC, performance is on par with the Qualcomm SoC, only real downfall is that Huawei doesn't sell the Kirin to other oems, otherwise it would be more widespread. The Kirin 970 with its built in NPU and and gigabit LTE modem is going to give the Qualcomm 835/845 a run for their money. Of course the port of the new Google camera app is not going to give you more than the basic functionality as it was written specifically for Google pixel devices (it doesn't give you all the features on older Google or snapdragon devices either), I installed the port on my mate 9 and it was acceptable for basic camera functions but no matter what you do you're never going to get a port of something written for another device to have the same features or performance as the stock app written for your device.
revjamescarver said:
Nothing at all wrong with the Kirin SoC, performance is on par with the Qualcomm SoC, only real downfall is that Huawei doesn't sell the Kirin to other oems, otherwise it would be more widespread. The Kirin 970 with its built in NPU and and gigabit LTE modem is going to give the Qualcomm 835/845 a run for their money. Of course the port of the new Google camera app is not going to give you more than the basic functionality as it was written specifically for Google pixel devices (it doesn't give you all the features on older Google or snapdragon devices either), I installed the port on my mate 9 and it was acceptable for basic camera functions but no matter what you do you're never going to get a port of something written for another device to have the same features or performance as the stock app written for your device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree that the Kirin Processors are good, and the reason is Kirin is Huawei's home made processor so the pairing between Hardware and Software is perfectly optimisez for better performance and as far as Better Processing is concerned, after Apple Qualcomm holds the 2nd position no doubt, yeah in near future Kirin might surpass Qualcomm interms of performance no idea.
As far as the ported app is concerned I prefer stock android/custom roms over stock roms(MIUI/EMUI) and if someone ports the stock huawei camera for Los/RR running on Huawei devices itself, I'll surely go with a Kirin device but right now thats not available so after installing a custom rom I'll prefer Google camera app, if not the ported one, I'll go with the one available in Apkmirror, though this is my own preference as I'm addicted to using stock android and google apps suite, lets see how much development the Honor 7X gets, if it gets Treble support via OTA I'll go with it else the Mi A1 as of now is my 1st choice
I'm wondering, and the answer may be 'We don't know yet', but...
Many of us have used custom ROM's to avoid using an OEM's UI, bloatware, etc. Because Treble enabled phones will have a 'Vendor' partition (which will include these UI's etc), will that then mean the mfg's specific stuff can't really be (completely) removed the way an after market ROM does?
Of course, there's always ways of disabling mfg stuff, but Roms like Los just do it all in one fell swoop (much easier).
Do we know at this point how this will work with Treble?
Cheers and Happy New Year
AsItLies said:
I'm wondering, and the answer may be 'We don't know yet', but...
Many of us have used custom ROM's to avoid using an OEM's UI, bloatware, etc. Because Treble enabled phones will have a 'Vendor' partition (which will include these UI's etc), will that then mean the mfg's specific stuff can't really be (completely) removed the way an after market ROM does?
Of course, there's always ways of disabling mfg stuff, but Roms like Los just do it all in one fell swoop (much easier).
Do we know at this point how this will work with Treble?
Cheers and Happy New Year
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The SOC source code will reside in the vendor partition, for example The Pixel XL has SD835 so the source code of the SOC will be there in itz Vendor partition. So if you are using a Treble enabled device such as the Huawei Mate 9 which has its own custom UI, if u flash a custom rom on it, the stock OS will get completely removed and the run ROM will run on it.
The Mgf's UI is a part of the system nd not of the vendor partition.
I am planning to buy Honor 7x, I found a thread on 7X forum which has Mount points and partition layout details for 7x. In the details, i can see below line, does this mean that phone supports Treble once updated to Oreo?
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 21 Dec 24 10:46 vendor -> /dev/block/mmcblk0p47
Orignal thread link
https://forum.xda-developers.com/honor-7x/development/mount-partition-layout-profile-xml-t3727990
Thanks:good: in advance!!
indigo110 said:
I am planning to buy Honor 7x, I found a thread on 7X forum which has Mount points and partition layout details for 7x. In the details, i can see below line, does this mean that phone supports Treble once updated to Oreo?
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 21 Dec 24 10:46 vendor -> /dev/block/mmcblk0p47
Orignal thread link
https://forum.xda-developers.com/honor-7x/development/mount-partition-layout-profile-xml-t3727990
Thanks:good: in advance!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is evident from past experiences that the Honor 7X might get Treble via OTA update as the case was with Honor 8 Pro. The Honor 7X's source code got released a few weeks ago and I got some info that the Open Kirin team will also support the 7X so I guess the Open Kirin team will also release a Treble supported rom
So I'm watching the treble news for the galaxy 9 and it's like a knife is turning in my back. I love the s8 hardware but the software, not so much. I have always preferred aosp but I don't like the pixel 2 xl's screen and I want a 2k display so no OnePlus. I hoped that the Oreo update for the s8 will bring project treble support like other OEM's did, but ofc Samsung screwed us one more time before the s9 launch. My question is: do you think that treble will ever come to the s8? Via official update from Samsung? or an xda developer port? :crying:
Because of how the system needs to be repartitioned, the only way to have treble is for the phone to come from the factory with treble set up.
eregev said:
Because of how the system needs to be repartitioned, the only way to have treble is for the phone to come from the factory with treble set up.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But phones that launched with nougat and got updated to Oreo support treble. Some Huawei and Sony devices. The essential phone too
vladtdr said:
So I'm watching the treble news for the galaxy 9 and it's like a knife is turning in my back. I love the s8 hardware but the software, not so much. I have always preferred aosp but I don't like the pixel 2 xl's screen and I want a 2k display so no OnePlus. I hoped that the Oreo update for the s8 will bring project treble support like other OEM's did, but ofc Samsung screwed us one more time before the s9 launch. My question is: do you think that treble will ever come to the s8? Via official update from Samsung? or an xda developer port? :crying:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm very pessimistic when it comes to Samsung and upgrades. There is no money in putting the extra work to bring Project Treble on another "old" phone.
So bad is Samsung software update strategy that I'm on October 2017 Security patch while March 2018 is already out!
(Australian non-branded XSA S8+ here). They haven't even released Oreo update for non-branded phones! These phones are meant to get updates first as they don't require telco "certification".
Having said that all that, I'm sticking to with Samsung as their hardware "just works". If Google released a phone of Samsung quality and with a Samsung AMOLED screen I'd switch in a heartbeat.
samsung probably won't add treble support because there is nothing to gain for them. they'd rather you buy a s9. there's a lot of software-only feature in these phones where they want you to buy new hardware, even thus they could easily do it on the old hardware. but it cost money (effort) and they don't get revenue for it (sales), and they're already one of the leading android phone maker, so they don't have to care. All this make it very unlikely.
community might add it somehow, eventually, who knows. I guess you could interface oreo drivers to wrappers or something like that...
vladtdr said:
But phones that launched with nougat and got updated to Oreo support treble. Some Huawei and Sony devices. The essential phone too
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Those companies care about its user, samsung on the other hand doesn't.
I saw that some Xiaomi phones got treble support un oficial( from Devs here on xda) maybe they can do the same for s8? I think the phone has to have a vendor partition tho
I think yes, because google demands companies to do so, and that means if they are going to use google's software, they have to respect their rules. But it probably will be supported after android pie update. At least s9 does support project t.
---------- Post added at 06:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:29 PM ----------
vladtdr said:
I saw that some Xiaomi phones got treble support un oficial( from Devs here on xda) maybe they can do the same for s8? I think the phone has to have a vendor partition tho
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think it is only possible for some devices with non-necesarry but existing special partitions. Redmi note 4 had a special partition for miui to store some specific data. And dev used that partition to bring project treble support. As i know sammy devices don't have any other partition except ordinary ones.
Nope. Not going to happen. It wouldn't help USA Snapdragon devices anyway, as Samsung isn't signing non stock images. For 95XF/FD & 95X0 you can probably fake it, which I'll explain below.
vladtdr said:
I saw that some Xiaomi phones got treble support un oficial( from Devs here on xda) maybe they can do the same for s8? I think the phone has to have a vendor partition tho
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For exynos and non usa/canada phones only this is possible now, if someone reverse engineers the pit file format, or if the one someone came out with years ago still works.
An easier solution though is to just make hybrid images from existing gsi ROMs. Just open up a gsi image, paste in the vendor from a rom and voila! Samsung already moved all the config files around and simplified /vendor to /system/vendor so this should work just fine. I've been meaning to try but haven't gotten around to it yet
Im willing to try
partcyborg said:
Nope. Not going to happen. It wouldn't help USA Snapdragon devices anyway, as Samsung isn't signing non stock images. For 95XF/FD & 95X0 you can probably fake it, which I'll explain below.
For exynos and non usa/canada phones only this is possible now, if someone reverse engineers the pit file format, or if the one someone came out with years ago still works.
An easier solution though is to just make hybrid images from existing gsi ROMs. Just open up a gsi image, paste in the vendor from a rom and voila! Samsung already moved all the config files around and simplified /vendor to /system/vendor so this should work just fine. I've been meaning to try but haven't gotten around to it yet
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Im willing to try this out, any chances of bricking my g955f. could you give me a step by step instruction on how to accomplish this seeing as no one seems to want to do this
DalmAsian said:
Im willing to try this out, any chances of bricking my g955f. could you give me a step by step instruction on how to accomplish this seeing as no one seems to want to do this
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I gave this a shot on a bl unlocked snapdragon a bit ago and had no luck. At least with snapdragon, there is more to it than that.
So no, this isn't something that I or anyone else can give you a set of exact steps to accomplish. There is way too many unknowns to possibly predict them all, as this would up being much more a development/porting project than I suspected.
I still think it's doable for my device, especially after learning a few things through running gsis on a device with full treble support, but it will still take understanding what is happening and being able to make decisions based upon logs and other development practices.