Updates for Android continue to be a huge problem.
Android OEMs have historically been terrible at releasing timely updates (it can take months), releasing updates at all (particularly cheap Android phones get EOLed long before an admittedly way more expensive iPhone would) and such updates aren't typically pushed in the same way.
One big problem with Android is the way driver updates work. It's a nontrivial process to add hardware support for a later Android version because of the Linux roots and having no stable ABI.
I think back to how Windows has changed over the last 2 decades. Once Windows updates were all paid and people would hang on to old versions of Windows forever. Microsoft eventually realized this was a problem for them so paid upgrades aren't what they once were.
Additionally, driver instability used to be a massive problem on Windows. Microsoft to their credit spent a lot of effort improving their driver situation to isolate drivers and have a stable ABI. Windows is way more stable than it was 20 years ago.
Even OSX has adopted user space drivers (DriverKit).
By the way, the above reasons is why some at Google have pushed Fucshia as essentially an Android ecosystem and architecture reset. It's been close to 10 years now. I don't see this going anywhere despite billions being poured into it at this point.
> Windows is way more stable than it was 20 years ago.
The problem with Windows today is more that it wants to opaquely update itself all the time, and the user gets undesired mandatory "updates" such as ads in menus and sending "telemetry" home (ie user activity data for MS' machine learning ambitions). But of course the most important thing is to keep fucking web browsers up-to-date with laughable and undesired CSS or WASM features (including subsequent exploit/fingerprinting fixes) all the time and even more often than actual content, or what's left of it anyway on the extant web.
I am using an Android phone which gets timely updates. However the vendor does not seem to do enough testing for major versions and has ended up with at least one significant bug upon release twice. I could do with less timely updates that come with less bugs.
> Updates for Android continue to be a huge problem.
As is being pointed out elsewhere, this isn't a vulnerability in an "Android" product. These are TVs running vendor-maintained AOSP builds. They get updates when and how the vendor decides to do it. It's not related to the (fairly reasonable, though often spun) arguments about updates in the phone licensee ecosystem.
This is a distinction without a difference. It's not like you can take your Android hardware and move to a different software supplier. You're stuck with whatever your OEM chooses to do or not do.
It's also something you don't necessarily have knowledge of when you purchase a phone.
It's one reason why people (myself include) prefer Apple. You know you're going to get 4-5+ years of updates.
No? For a licensed Android phone there's a clean split between OEM and OS updates, a clear declaration for support period and a OS-managed tracking of updates with clear visibility to the customer. I get that there are constant platforms flames about whether this is acceptable or inferior to Apple's offering, yada yada yada.
But the point is that none of that is relevant here, because these aren't phones and aren't running a licensed "Android" variant. They're just TVs running vendor-custom firmware that happens to be based on AOSP, and clearly can't be expected to conform to any update regime except whatever the integrator put together.
Basically, the story here is saying "I hacked product A" and you're trying to have an argument like "That's because this unrelated product B is bad". It's a non-sequitur.
I'm not sure I understand how having a second OS would hedge against people not wanting to use their first OS, but Fuschia being some sort of backup plan would at least explain why it didn't really ever get used. My guess was always that it just didn't ever have full support as a replacement due to turf wars with people in charge of Android-related things.
Android OEMs have historically been terrible at releasing timely updates (it can take months), releasing updates at all (particularly cheap Android phones get EOLed long before an admittedly way more expensive iPhone would) and such updates aren't typically pushed in the same way.
One big problem with Android is the way driver updates work. It's a nontrivial process to add hardware support for a later Android version because of the Linux roots and having no stable ABI.
I think back to how Windows has changed over the last 2 decades. Once Windows updates were all paid and people would hang on to old versions of Windows forever. Microsoft eventually realized this was a problem for them so paid upgrades aren't what they once were.
Additionally, driver instability used to be a massive problem on Windows. Microsoft to their credit spent a lot of effort improving their driver situation to isolate drivers and have a stable ABI. Windows is way more stable than it was 20 years ago.
Even OSX has adopted user space drivers (DriverKit).
By the way, the above reasons is why some at Google have pushed Fucshia as essentially an Android ecosystem and architecture reset. It's been close to 10 years now. I don't see this going anywhere despite billions being poured into it at this point.