How did Android's update support become so inconsistent?

https://lemm.ee/post/4893311

How did Android's update support become so inconsistent? - lemm.ee

As a point of comparison, Microsoft ships its OS across a variety of manufacturers and largely keeps it maintained across them (give or take some exceptions like enterprise environments & the like). Even unlocked Android phones purchased independently of carriers have inconsistent lengths of support, so it doesn’t seem to be entirely a result of carriers, so…What happened here?

Every single answer here is wrong in some way, and I’m very surprised nobody has given the correct answer. And to correct you, OP, Android has never had consistent update support.

It’s true that it stems fundamentally from the hardware drivers. But it’s not necessarily a problem with Android itself.

First, Android utilizes the Linux kernel. Linux maintains all drivers within the kernel, and they mostly tell closed-source drivers to fuck off. That being said, you can still run closed source drivers on Linux, but it’ll be up to the driver-maker to maintain compatibility between kernel versions, not the kernel maintainers. This is CRITICAL to know in order to answer the question correctly.

Hardware vendors like Qualcomm don’t want to open-source their drivers, and thus don’t want to upstream them to the Linux kernel. They also often only offer limited support unless you pay for it. For Qualcomm this has traditionally been 2 years.

Thus, if I’m a phone-maker using Qualcomm chips, as are most phone-makers, then unless I pay Qualcomm extra money, they’re only going to guarantee support for 2 years. After that, updating Android further (which usually requires updating the kernel, too) could break the hardware drivers and I’d have no way to fix it. Thus, I only offer my customers support for 2 years at maximum.

What has Google been doing to fix this?

Well, several things. First, Google has been asking all hardware-makers to pretty please upstream everything they can into the Linux kernel. This has had decent success, but not everyone will do this. Google has also been upstreaming as much of the Android kernel as possible into the Linux kernel to minimize differences, with the ideal being that the Linux kernel and Android kernel are exactly identical.

Additionally, Google has developed the Generic Kernel Image, or GKI, which presents a Kernel Module Interface, or KMI. This KMI is a stable interface through which hardware drivers communicate with the rest of the kernel. This is the solution to closed-source drivers. If your KMI doesn’t change and a given hardware module was written against it, you can keep updating indefinitely even when the hardware module is out of support, until you need to change the KMI again, likely for new hardware features.

Google tried getting the KMI upstreamed into the Linux kernel, but the Linux maintainers seem fairly skeptical of it since it goes against their driver philosophy.

In any case, Linux has LTS releases that are supported for 6 years. They release a new LTS every year. Each year, Google selects the latest LTS and builds the latest Android version against that release. They can add to the KMI, when this happens, but it is frozen for that kernel version from then on. From there, they keep building Android against that kernel version until it is no longer supported.

Let’s take Linux 5.10 for example. There is android12-5.10. Linux 5.10 is supported for 6 years, so you will also see android13-5.10, android14-5.10, etc. Additionally, Linux 5.15 is an LTS release and was released the year after. So there will be an android13-5.15 that may support newer hardware features than android13-5.10, but they will otherwise both be Android 13. There will also be android14-5.15 and so on until the 5.15 kernel goes out of support.

I hope that example made sense! This means for a given device releasing with GKI support, it can get up to 6 years of Android updates without breaking hardware drivers. You won’t get new hardware features introduced by newer kernels or KMI versions, but that doesn’t matter on a phone that doesn’t get new hardware anyway, so you’re not really missing out on anything. This is how Google is making updates more consistent on Android.

Good explanation and lines in with why iPhone get years of support as they have full control of hardware and drivers.
a huge asterisk here. apple cuts off support to perfectly valid devices for greed. since they dont have any hardware limitation. an ipad mini 2 today is a brick basically, because fuck you buy another product bitch.

I mean an iPad mini 2 would obviously struggle with iOS today due to hardware limitations.

And you’re very much free to use it, problem is app developers do not find it worthwhile their time supporting older devices as so few use them and it impacts what they can and cannot do. Thus it becomes unusable.

But all Apple apps will obviously still work.

I mean an iPad mini 2 would obviously struggle with iOS today due to hardware limitations.

NO, it would not.

you can take a 20yo laptop and run WIN 11 and the latest macos and the latest linux kernel.

im sick of this excuse. you have been brainwashed if you REALLY think thats a limitation. it is NOT.

My 10 year old Thinkpad barely qualifies as “running” windows 10, not Ubuntu for that matter. Haven’t bothered trying 11. I do partly agree with you, especially moving forward. But an iPad mini 2 has 1 gb of ram and 16 gb of space, both rather huge limitations for a mobile OS of today.

i can run the latest linux kernel on a device with 512mb of ram.

My 10 year old Thinkpad barely qualifies as “running” windows 10,

that laptop can run windows 10 just fine.it can run win 11 just fine and its gonna be able to run win 12 just fine.

Did a computer bought to run windows 95 run XP? Did a computer bought for 98 run Vista? That’s a more fair comparison, as mobile operating systems are very young. And mobile devices from 10 years ago have hardware that could not really be compared to computers.

Sure, processors at peak capacity where good. But forcing a 10 year old processor running todays software would drain the battery - that was also in no way comparable to today - to fast. And that is even if you could install the OS, as there is so little device space on many of them. Then you open one app and you’re out of ram potentially causing crashes all over the place, because mobile apps are rarely built for efficiency.

It would be a horrid experience.

Did a computer bought to run windows 95 run XP?

yes

Did a computer bought for 98 run Vista?

yes

shit the brainwash is complete,i guess you are too far gone

XP was based on the NT kernel while 95 was using DOS. You’re just plain wrong. Spec wise it would not have worked.

And a computer built for 98 sure as hell did not reach the requirements to run Vista. Hell, many XP computers struggled.

You’re just plain wrong.

Sure buddy, keep licking the boot
I’ll do that while you stick your head in the sand to facts