Why don't Google force Android updates?

[AustinIllini]

Now THAT would be nice to see! One of the drawbacks of stock Android is its lack of features. If Sammy and Google could collaborate and exchange ideas....what a win win that would be for all of us.

Obviously Google needs to be careful, because they don't want to simply endorse Samsung as the Android OEM frontrunner for fear of alienating other companies, but I feel this can't hurt.

 

[KALLT]

Obviously Google needs to be careful, because they don't want to simply endorse Samsung as the Android OEM frontrunner for fear of alienating other companies, but I feel this can't hurt.

Moreover, Samsung is already experimenting with Tizen (they actually released a Tizen-based smartphone in India) and companies like Xiaomi and open-source projects as CyanogenMod (used e.g. by OnePlus) demonstrate that Android alternatives exist and are viable. It's as I said, Google has effective control over Android, but Android itself can be replaced if so desired. If people get fed up with the lacking (security) updates on Android then they could easily go for an OEM that commits to such updates (e.g. Nexus) or jump ship. This creates an opportunity for OEMs to pitch updates as a distinguishing feature (like BlackBerry now intends to do with the Priv) or diversify into other operating systems like Windows 10 Mobile. The entire situation is so delicately balanced that no party would dare upsetting it.

Ultimately, Google doesn't even have to care. Google's mission was to bring their own system to the masses, coupled with their own Google apps. Google obtains its revenue not from Android proper, but from the services it delivers (data collection + advertising). Google doesn't inherently care about these security issues, especially when it can easily put the blame to OEMs which are not upgrading. The problem simply is that customers don't care, hence why OEMs don't care either. If security were that important to people, OEMs would deliver such a product. A question of demand and subsequent supply.

 

[AustinIllini]

Moreover, Samsung is already experimenting with Tizen (they actually released a Tizen-based smartphone in India) and companies like Xiaomi and open-source projects as CyanogenMod (used e.g. by OnePlus) demonstrate that Android alternatives exist and are viable. It's as I said, Google has effective control over Android, but Android itself can be replaced if so desired. Moreover, if people get fed up with the lacking (security) updates on Android and are looking for alternatives, manufacturers could switch to Windows 10 Mobile too. The entire situation is so delicately balanced that no party would dare upsetting it. Ultimately, Google doesn't even have to care. Google's mission was to bring their own system to the masses, coupled with their own Google apps. Google obtains its revenue not from Android proper, but from the services it delivers (data collection + advertising). Google doesn't inherently care about these security issues, especially when it can easily put the blame to OEMs which are not upgrading.

If Tizen has taught us anything, it's that people have iPhone and Android ingrained in their phone buying process. There isn't room for an alternative, honestly.

I appreciate your belief that Android can be replaced, but it really can't be replaced in an economically sound manner by one company.

 

[KALLT]

If Tizen has taught us anything, it's that people have iPhone and Android ingrained in their phone buying process. There isn't room for an alternative, honestly.

I appreciate your belief that Android can be replaced, but it really can't be replaced in an economically sound manner.

That's because Android is still the dominant system. It would be easy for Samsung to just go full Android, but they don't. They rather take on the expense of providing Tizen to some of their customers. That is a clear gesture: they are with Android for their own reasons, not because of loyalty to Google. This has implications for the relationship between the two.