After skipping the month of July, Google is back in August with the latest distribution numbers for each version of Android. The numbers show that Android Lollipop is now on 18.1 percent of devices, making the jump from 12.4 percent when distribution numbers were last reported in June. Interestingly, KitKat is now on 39.3 percent, marking a tiny increase from 39.2 percent when numbers were last reported. Jelly Bean took a slight dive, making up 33.6 percent of installs, down from 37.4 percent in June.
I always find these distribution numbers depressing.
Always annoying how most manufacturers never update their version of Android more than a couple of dot releases before complete abandonment.
For the most part to update your Android phone the new ROM must be pre-approved by the carriers and come, as a signed package, either from them or from the manufacturer.
I have a Republic Wireless phone and got selected for the soak test for Lollipop 5.1. Because it is a hybrid WiFi/cell ROM it has usually been 6 months or more behind the mainstream releases for other handsets and carriers. The soak had some problems (which I didn’t notice nor report) and the ROM is now back with the developers and the carrier testing labs. I still have it on my phone and am doing fine with it.
In the mean time the Stagefright bug has been discovered and it looks like there may be one or two others coming to the fore as well. So the usual 4 week carrier lab testing protocol may be stretched out by the patching process.
There are exceptions of course. If you have an unlocked bootloader or rooted phone you can install ROMs that may have been developed by 3rd parties. Then you become a de facto tester depending on how many users the ROM may have.
There aren’t a great percentage of those unlocked phones in the US due to the subsidy model combined with the fact that GSM is not the dominant paradigm so the subsidy model lock-in is hard to undercut.
I expect this to change as the industry continues to get disrupted.
It is depressing and it sucks, agree.
I think that manufacturers like PC-Makers at the end they never feel compelled to upgrade the operating systems of PCs.
On a PC the users were the responsible of updating his Operating System. But on Windows it was easy, the PC was standard and when you go from WinXP to Win7 you can do it your self, it will run and you may have a problem with drivers or not. So manufacturers stopped caring about OS updates on PCs, they only see it as “is the hardware that I’m selling right now is running, good, so I don’t care about future releases of the OS”
But Android has to be compiled for each kind of processor, so even if it is open source and free to use, it adds a complexity that we didn’t have before on PCs.
And manufacturers sucks, they do not only not update their phones, but they also lock them so you can not do it on your own with a development community.
People think that the solution is for one company to have all the control on the device and OS, which I don’t share. There has to be a better way…. but I don’t see it coming yet.
The situation is not ideal by any means, but it feels like Lollipop is growing faster than previous versions did. The question for me is will KitKat become the new Gingerbread? For a long time Gingerbread represented a large chunk of the Android userbase stuck in time, as new releases rolled out. KitKat is a really solid release, so it’s not the worst fate ever, but it is a drag for developers to have this persistent bolus of users on really old OS versions. Right now it’s actually really good with 90+% of users on 16+
The biggest drag on getting things updated is that most OEMs are dependent on the SoC manufacturers for new board support packages as new versions of Android roll out. The lack of standardization in ARM SoCs means that the Windows situation where MS could write an OS down to the metal and ship it on all devices just isn’t possible. Google is highly dependent on Qualcomm, Mediatek, and other SoC manufacturers to provide the low level glue, and if the SoC manufacturers move on, even the best intentioned OEM can get stuck with an non-upgradable device.
Edited 2015-08-03 23:45 UTC
I’m no expert, but I know a lot can be done once you look beyond sales and marketing.
I have Android 5.1.1 release 6 (LMY48G) on my asus TF101.. a device that is more than 4 years old now.
edit: checked release version in changelog.
Edited 2015-08-04 05:53 UTC
I’ve got Lollipop 5.1 running on my aging Galaxy Note. It’s surprisingly snappy and clean, definitely a big upgrade from any previous Android – versions. It’s wonderful how much support one can still find online for some older devices.
Alas, my Acer Iconia Tab A500 – tablet hasn’t received much love; still stuck on Kitkat, the few JB ROMs I’ve tried were pretty unstable and crappy and no Lollipop at all. I should just buy a new tablet sooner or later, but it’s not easy to find one that suits my needs :/
Wanna know what’s even more depressing? After upgrading my Moto X from Kitkat to Lollipop, I kinda wish I had Kitkat back, because Lollipop runs like ass on this phone, plus there’s a few annoying issues with it as well.
I think this is the last locked phone I’ll ever purchase. At least then I can downgrade whenever Google decides to release some broken-ass ‘upgrade’.
Yeah, I don’t think its Lollipop’s fault necessarily, but I’m starting to doubt the wisdom of upgrading phone OS versions. The OEM tested it best against whatever it had on it coming from the factory. As much as we’ve given the OEM’s crap for being slow with upgrades int he past, it bears getting things right which requires all of their chip providers playing ball as well. Moto X V1’s slow Lollipop upgrade was due entirely to a chip provider being slow with code.
Unless there is a killer feature for me in a phone OS, I think I’ll stick with what it came with until the update situation gets better. I’ve even heard of issues with the nexus 5 upgrade losing significant battery life with lollipop. The hardware on the phones is too customized to keep straight, requiring OEM’s to re-invent the wheel over and over.
Well, it took ’em about 7 months to get the update on this phone, and it was still broken …
A couple months ago I updated my Nexus 4 to CMKitkat, the annoyances made me update to CMLolypop 3 days ago in desperation. Lolypop was frustrating for about an hour so back to CMJellybean. What a relief. Count me as a JB statistic to stay until I get a new phone, thanks.
Considering the upgrade to Lollipop was a big step back for my Nexus 7 tablet, not having everybody on the latest and greatest is not necessary a bad thing.
As for being a big step back, it somehow activated the dreaded flash issue of Nexus 7, but even worse, the Photos app in Lollipop is useless compared with the gem the Gallery app was in KitKat (I do photography for a living).
It’s definitely a bad thing, if you’re a developer.
I don’t really give a rat’s arse what excuses users come up with. If they’re not using the most recent version, they’re bad people and should feel bad.
Just because a user decides they don’t like the new release shouldn’t mean they get to hold back features in apps, and force developers to write cludges that cater to the lowest common denominator.
Edited 2015-08-04 09:54 UTC
Wow, frustrated much?
Here is how this works:
If you write code for the latest and greatest OS-version, only a few percent of the users can use your app.
If you write code for most used OS-version (which used to be the latest and greatest not so long ago), almost everyone can use your app.
Of course a developer wants to only use the coolest new stuff, but we got work done last year as well so don’t call users “bad” for keeping what works for them or even what is available to them.
It is not about the coolest thing, it is about bugs issues solved in later versions. As a developer too much effort is wasted to work around bugs in older versions
As a developer that is your problem.
Users are many, developers are few. It is the responsibility of the developers to not put bugs in at first and if they fail to live with the consequences. Having everyone on the latest and greatest is the ideal for developers. Having software that just works is the ideal for users. Users pay developers and users are in the majority, so the balance will shift away from the ideal of developers leaning towards the ideal for the users
Uh… WHAT? The entire purpose of an app is to fulfil its user’s needs. Not giving a rat’s ass about what users want/need is a really bad way to develop software. Let me guess: you also want users to pay for your apps?
Indeed. However, when it comes to things like web browsers and operating systems, users that selfishly cling to outdated versions still expect to be catered to.
For phones, it’s not (normally) the user’s fault that they’re not on the latest version.
However, if a user purposefully refuses to stay on the latest version, they shouldn’t expect to be catered to, and should expect that they’ll also have to use old versions of apps. FDroid is great for that, as they list old versions of applications.
In the case of web browsers, if you’re not on the latest version, you shouldn’t expect any websites to work for you.
The sooner all browsers and OSes go rolling-release, the better. If a proprietary OS or browser drops a feature you liked, and you can’t make an add-on to reimplement it, maybe you should be using FOSS alternatives – KDE and Firefox haven’t lost any functionality in the last decade, despite altering themselves radically, and greatly modernising.
OS X, Chrome, Arch Linux, Firefox, KDE, and Android have only gotten better with every single release though (and, my terminal and TWM don’t really ever change). Most people that complain simply got used to the way things were, and refuse to update their knowledge. The way a GUI is laid out doesn’t matter in the same manner as the way a shell environment behaves – they change, you adapt. That’s all.
Edited 2015-08-04 11:32 UTC
Ah. So you’re a basement techie, not a professional. Gotcha.
On the contrary, I get so frustrated by legacy OSes and browsers because my job includes supporting them.
Win10 will be rolling-release, which resolves the main problem (even if Enterprise rolls [much] slower, it will still roll.)
this is bullshit “In the case of web browsers, if you’re not on the latest version, you shouldn’t expect any websites to work for you.” the HTML/CSS/JS standards changes every few months an all websites move with it so fast that a slightly old browser can’t render it correctly? Seriously, I expect the huge majority of the web to work correctly even with a 3 years old browser.
I believe we have different understandings of the word “work”, in this context.
I mean that you can’t expect new features and functionality to be made available to old browsers.
Plain old HTML5 will obviously still work, but as we get nice things like web components, web assembly, service workers, notifications, etc., older browsers can’t expect to have the full functionality of modern ones, and their users should expect certain functionality to be broken.
It’s part of what they need to be willing to trade if they insist on using obsolete browsers that don’t have support for new standards.
The trouble is, old browsers currently just prevent developers from using new tools and capabilities, or require the addition of compatibility shims. This is because the users of older browsers expect that they should have 100% of the functionality of every site – meaning, more capable browsers can’t be used to their full potential.
There is also the huge irritation that comes from having to support bugs that existed in those older versions, which have been fixed in newer versions. There’s a reason shims, polyfills, and CSS/JS frameworks are almost necessary to do anything of any level of complexity, with legacy and evergreen browser support.
Edited 2015-08-04 14:15 UTC
No, its your choice too. If you want them as customers, include support. If you don’t, don’t include support. You don’t get to force them to upgrade, They don’t get to force you to write support for them.
My phone started out with 4.2, and was later upgraded to 4.3 and 4.4 and 5.0. It is slightly prettier now, but other than that i can’t say i actually care, i would still be happy enough with 4.2.
4.4 especially was a nasty surprise with the change to how SD cards worked.
For me the mobile (and desktop for that matter) operating systems are now so mature that i couldn’t really care less about the updates. What matters is the apps running on them.
I could say the same about Windows. Windows 8 (desktop) is slightly prettier than Windows 7 and felt slightly faster, other than that, i couldn’t care less if i was running Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows 8.1 or Windows 10. Probably even Vista. Actually Windows 10 feels like a regression over 8.1 in a couple of areas, but now i am getting too far away from the topic