All my disdain for Google aside, I wouldn't as well, in a sense you are implying. I develop a product, I care about its quality, I allow you to use its code on your devices. Should I care how badly will you fuck up your own proprietary version of the product I granted you to use? Not the slightest, IMO.
> Should I care how badly will you fuck up your own proprietary version of the product I granted you to use?
YES, because your name is on it. If it's white boxed and no normal consumer knows you are responsible (like the Android underpinnings of the Fire tablets) then they're OK.
But Android phones are seen as Google's phones and are known to run Google's OK. So when they suck, it reflects poorly on Google. Always crashing? Battery doesn't last? Got malware? Confusing to use? Never gets updated? "Android is like that".
So techies come out and say "Well only the Nexus line is real Android" and that's cute. It may be technically true. But it doesn't matter to a normal consumer. If your name is on it (and all the prompts to use Google software and log into Google don't help this) then you're going to be associated with it.
Let's say there are two restaurant chains. You have Taco Bell and Mex Express Featuring Taco Bell. They're both advertised the same way, and MEFTB makes it clear that Taco Bell is involved in the creation of their recipes.
Now as an ultra-informed consumer you may know that MEFTB simply buys their ingredients from TB and has additional original menu items as well.
When someone gets food poising from an original item at MEFTB do you think normal consumers are going to bother to understand that? Or because all the ads are intermingled do you think they'll assume that Taco Bell is having issues too and avoid them?
This is a fundamental problem with Android that a lot of fans seem to want to sweep under the rug. If your name is on it then it effects YOUR reputation. Doesn't matter if it's customized. Doesn't matter if it's not your fault.
Little Billy got an Android tablet (that's how it was advertised)... it was a piece of junk... Android tablets are junk. That's the lesson a LOT of consumers would learn.
In the case of phones the horrible low-end Android phones don't do that much damage because there are highly successful examples of good Android phones, such as the Galaxy series.
But if 95% of Android phones, including flagships, have serious security problems then saying 'But not Nexus' isn't going to do much for you.
>I develop a product, I care about its quality, I allow you to use its code on your devices
I don't have problems with Google if companies use their AOSP in horrible ways. I have problems with Google when they don't put a clause into their T&C for Google Play that the phone has to have some standards.
This is a false abstraction. Android is designed to be used as a component in proprietary products and Google requires that those products carry its brand. Google is intentionally taking credit for the products it brands, and therefore must also take responsibility for their shortcomings.
The problem with this mentality is the idea that people using phones with their Google accounts with apps bought from the Google Play Store with email via (Google)mail which reports their location and other sensitive data to Google are not Google's customers and that Google has no responsibility to them.
This is the Microsoft problem, right? People bought tons of computers with Windows and they were loaded to hell with crapware.
It wasn't MS's fault any more than it was Intel's. They just sold a component to the company (Dell, HP, NoNameBrand, whatever) that put all the crud on the computer.
But it was a WINDOWS computer so people blamed Microsoft and said "Why can't you fix this"?
They're trying, but because their product was so central to what was being purchased, as well as so obvious and in your face, that people associated them and they got blame they didn't deserve.
I don't think that's germane to the point I was making. How easy it is to reinstall Windows doesn't really factor in to how 3rd parties are able to change your reputation for you.
You're letting MS of the hook too lightly, in my opinion.
If Windows was -> OEM license: Regular licenses :: CVS : Costco (All OEM does is give bulk discounts), you'd be right.
If most OEMs weren't abusing their position by packaging cruft with Windows, you'd be right.
But when a company imposes T&C, often specifying exactly what apps/programs goes where, and doesn't insist on removing cruft, their silence is deafening.
-----
By the way, I'd blame MS the same way when OEMs sell underperfoming computers with Windows (um um, Vista). It's true that Vista on a behemoth machine for its day was quite usable, but there's no excuse, when you're already dictating resellers policies, for letting them put windows on a 512MB of RAM machine.
I'll admit it's the OEM's fault also, but Microsoft gets part of the blaim
I wasn't trying to blame MS, only referencing that this kind of situation had already happened in the computer industry.
I think they knew what they were doing. They didn't clamp down because that would have kept prices higher and hurt sales, just like your example of dictating a minimum amount of RAM that's too low to be actually usable. They could have gone higher but must have figured the extra $$$ would be better than the $ lost due to reputation issues.
Indeed. Google uses their (probably illegal[0]) contract to mandate that Google+ must be preinstalled on your phone, but not that your phone must get security updates for a reasonable period of time.
>What they forget is that to put Android on a phone, practically you need Google's permission.
I think you're forgetting the hundreds of millions of users that use Android without any Google services.
>If Google cared, they could have made it part of the terms and conditions that it has to have security updates for five years.
Wouldn't it be nice if it was as simple as that? You seem to think Google has the ability to do whatever they want and have the OEM's fall in line one by one.
>They obviously don't
In that case they should probably stop investing millions into improving Android security every year and stop releasing security updates each month.
>I think you're forgetting the hundreds of millions of users that use Android without any Google services.
If only the problem was with those phones. Anything in the US except for Amazon is under Google's thumb
>Wouldn't it be nice if it was as simple as that? You seem to think Google has the ability to do whatever they want and have the OEM's fall in line one by one.
They put their foot down about other things, like branding, app choices. This should be more important.
You don't want to port Android 7 to a three year old phone, fine. But to refuse to patch against stagefright?
>If only the problem was with those phones. Anything in the US except for Amazon is under Google's thumb
So you've now qualified it to only phones in the US and devices not from Amazon?
>They put their foot down about other things, like branding, app choices. This should be more important.
It's a balancing act to keep everyone happy. When it comes to things like creating patches and paying for carrier certification these all cost money and shave off even more margin. Support the OEM's that provide timely OS updates and patches and disregard the rest.
What they forget is that to put Android on a phone, practically you need Google's permission.
If Google cared, they could have made it part of the terms and conditions that it has to have security updates for five years.
They obviously don't