SierraTango wrote:
Completely agree with Google's CEO. That would be a fantastic solution to everyone's problems. Give us more options SE! Let us choose whether we want vanilla android or android with your sh*tscape UI on OUR phones.
If that's the case then why in the name of all that's holy did Google decide on the current (very poor!) mechanism for updates, as is: Google does updates, passes to phone makers; phone makers "add value"* = much delay; phone maker passed "upgraded" version of the update to the teleco's, who then add their "value" = much more delay; finally Joe/Jane Public get's their hands on the shiny new update - or at least what's left after the phone makers and teleco's have fiddled with it.
With my limited knowledge, a nicer way would be:
a. Google issues an update, and sends it to the phone makers;
b. Phone makers check their hardware specifics (drivers!) still work, if not issue new ones;
c. Google update, plus new drivers if needed, are pushed out via phone makers update service - in our case SUS;
d. Teleco specific update service (over-the-air OTA) update revokes features that teleco ban's - like tethering. Add the "value add" stuff they seem to like;
e. Phones that refuse the OTA within a reasonable timeframe are banned from use until updated.
Advantages of this way are that the push out cycles can be a lot shorter - especially in the case of security patches. Since those may not be hardware specific, nor effect the teleco in any way, they could be fast-tracked onto the devices. On the other hand, the current system makes that very difficult.
Google screwed up big-time imho - instead of following the modular Linux distro model, they're still stuck in the last century - seeing the phone as a monolithically updateable device. Current scheme is like saying that if you update your PC to Windows 7 then you also need to move to Office 2010. Dumb!
