I'd like to debug and fix it but other things have priority, and I don't feel confident that if I were able to fix, that my change would be merged. Oy!
Edit: I should mention, they did fix part of it after about 6 months in the wild (the part where the barometer crashed all the sensors). What they haven't fixed is that the barometer doesn't actually reliably work.
Edit #2: Interestingly, I might have to eat some of my words. I'm just testing on 5.0.1 for the first time and haven't been able to reproduce the issues present from 4.0 through 5.0. Maybe it's actually fixed in 5.0.1!! Of course, I've only been testing for 10 minutes and it could still surface. For reference, the remaining bug is that the barometer periodically reports seemingly random values. 5mb, 730mb, 1004mb, 740mb, 300mb, 3mb, 750mb, etc. Now it seems to be stable and generally reporting the same values. Interesting.
Edit #3: A pastebin showing that it seems to be working after a few minutes of use. http://pastebin.com/RdBqbWzC
Edit #4: If you're curious why I care, it's for PressureNet to make a better weather forecast :) https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ca.cumulonimbu...
I think the major problem with Android is the unstoppable fragmentation. With low-end and high-end devices born every quarter, I find QA a nightmare. On the other end, if a bug can't be fixed after a year on a flagship device like Nexus 5 means there is something wrong with bug prioritization.
I know 7 and 8 aren't available, but I thought it got up to 6.
There's a reason Windows XP has stuck around for so long... most people don't need anything beyond XP. Sure they need security updates and new drivers, but these things are in the background. XP had, essentially, everything anybody will need for the next 50 years.
Apple does indeed a better job at supporting older devices, however new iOS releases are basically unusable on devices older than 2 years. I have for example a 2-year old iPad 3 and iOS 8 is usable on it, but for iPhone 4S or IPad 2 the upgrade turned usable devices into unusable ones.
The real problem is they're still selling it brand new (in the form of the non-retina Mini) and with Apple's policy of supporting devices for 2 or 3 years that means the device will get six years of updates, even though it's already aging badly at this point.
I still have an iPhone4S in a drawer; it's visibly slower than when it was under iOS6 and even compared to a 5S it's night and day, but compared to other middle range android phones that's still decent. Side to side with a Moto G for instance, it's basically the same reactivity, but no one would call the Moto G an unusable device.
That's quite a big difference. I've been pretty happy with my Nexus 4, and hoping to get a full third year out of it... since the Nexus 5 isn't a huge bump, and the N6 is way out of the ballpark on pricing imho. I've been recommending the Moto G LTE for most people lately... it's a usable phone without a lot of extra monthly expense.
The Moto G is under 250 unlocked and the first gen is one year old. The 4S went for a bit less than 700, is now 3 years old and resells for roughly 200. I don't think comparing the performances of the two under the most recent OSes available is biased.
Am I the only one who had the last iPhone 3 iOS update? It almost bricked the damn phone, making the interface impossibly slow.
The Apple phone I had became nigh unusable with a forced update. It's not contextual frame of reference - it just didn't work.
That doesn't mean that backwards compatibility and long-term support isn't a good thing for the consumer, but it really has nothing to do with the concept of "cool".
The most infuriating thing in all of this is that my iPhone 4S is STILL a fast device. The CPU hasn't shrunk since the time I bought it. Apple has decided that I am unworthy of restoring my phone to the state it was when I purchased it.
My mom just got an iPad mini, was infuriated when she discovered she can't buy Kindle books from the Kindle app like she could on Android.
The artificial restrictions Apple places on developers and users are ridiculous. And Android 5 is the first release where I can say that Android is unequivocally a nicer experience than iOS...
Agreed about Android 5 though, best yet!
Are you maybe thinking of Google blocking Amazon from including the Amazon Appstore in the Amazon shopping app? That's a different issue and,
more importantly, that doesn't really affect what's possible on Android, just how convenient it is. After all, anyone who wants to can download the store Google blocked from Amazon directly.
I think you can argue that a browser itself is an app store (you download and execute (web-)apps with it). But Apple does not allow the installation of different browser engines, so you can still not install an app store on your device.
But not to my mother.
I would guess (and only guess, I haven't tried to look for any numbers) that the percentage of people who go out and install an alternative app store, let alone Amazon's, is quite small (especially once you take out the HN audience)
She has an Android phone, with which she can buy books through the Kindle app (without messing with a website).
She has an iPad, on which she can't buy books through the Kindle app, and she does have to go through a browser to their website.
To her, the Android experience is better because of this (she reads a lot).
Certainly, they do not wait for the first x.0.1 release, or for the release that usually closely follows the initial release and which is specifically intended to optimize performance on the oldest devices that can still support the latest OS. This was seen for iOS 7 and once again for iOS 8.
I don't think it's a valid comment, or a comment made in good faith, to say that iOS updates are a "bait and switch". That's just silliness and flies in the face of all the facts. The facts say, very loudly, that Apple supports its older devices MUCH better and for much longer than any competitor. It's not even close.
Now, if you are unable to acknowledge reality, and expect that a brand-new OS, designed to take advantage of devices that are about 10x as fast as three-year-old or four-year-old devices, isn't going to be quite as snappy on older devices, then in my opinion, that is on you as a user. Blaming Apple for trying to give more features to users on new hardware is ludicrous. Apple expends considerable engineering effort keeping those devices working as well as possible. The iPhone has been out for seven years. There's now more than enough history out there for users to know that if you install major iOS updates, you cannot easily downgrade. (It's not impossible, it's just a huge pain.)
People are fond of overstating Apple problems and I'm grateful that the opportunity to upgrade exists at all. However it is a fact that it often destroys the performance so the ability to revert seems very reasonable. I also find the extent of the degradation puzzling.
Certainly, that is your version of reality. Only a small minority of users have any clue about downgrading.
>I don't think it's a valid comment, or a comment made in good faith, to say that iOS updates are a "bait and switch".
>that Apple supports its older devices MUCH better and for much longer than any competitor.
Well, it depends on your viewpoint. How can you 'support' a device by incrementally making it slower with each passing release? If all they were releasing was bug fixes and patches, and features which didn't adversely impact performance then YES I would agree with you. Or hell, I'd even agree with you with the current situation if Apple allowed downgrades.
Seriously, I mean don't you think its totally messed up that Apple has to give its permission before you're able to downgrade the OS to speed it up when its their own update that slowed it down ? Its ridiculous and should not be accepted as the norm.
> you cannot easily downgrade. (It's not impossible, it's just a huge pain.)
Cool, please point the entire world to a working bootrom exploit for the 4s. We've been waiting for a while :)
- the UI crashes several times per day, rendering the phone unusable for 20-40 seconds
- the phone is really sluggish, sometimes freezing for 5-10 seconds, with keystrokes entered during that time sometimes buffered and sometimes lost
- every couple of days, the phone freezes so badly I have to force it to reboot by holding power+home for a few seconds
Which facts? These? http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/09/ios-8-on-the-iphone-4s-...
Maverick was perfectly fine.
The MagSafe connector was replaced after 6 years by the MagSafe 2 connector, also in 2012.
Both of these connectors where replaced for good reasons. The Dock connector was not reversible, prone to break, and was easily clogged with dust. It was also too big for smaller form factors. The MagSafe connector was often confused with USB and also too thick for thinner devices, and it used a low charging voltage (less efficient).
Switching to a new design is often inconvenient, but also often necessary. To ease the transition, Apple even provided adaptors for compatibility with older chargers.
You're right, though. In this case, there definitely had to be an update to Apple's charging cables. Now that we're 3 generations into the new Lightning Connector, it's less of an issue for most people.
As for macs, the original MagSafe connector was in production for 6 years, before it was replaced by MagSafe 2 in 2012…
The joys of software. They can now be used to artificially shorten a products life cycle, without having to even design in obsolescence from the get go.
Do you recall if it was a major or minor update?
My Nexus 4 is growing a little decrepit, but not nearly as bad. I was considering a Sony, but they seem to lag on support for newer OSes as well, so now I'm thinking about a newer Nexus, but I'm really not sure.
My new litmus test is to look at 2-5 year old devices from the brand, and see how they work before buying a new one.
I'm not a gadget geek at all. I'm more of a cheap bastard/ "if it ain't broke.." and basically buy and use technology until it breaks or it won't do the job anymore. My Linksys WRT-54G I've had for at least 8 years just died the other day. For me it was good enough, no reason to change. My iPhone was good enough (until the updates made it unpleasant, I still used it, and eventually the hardware itself did die).
But at the same time, there was no "Warning: This will actually slow down your phone and make the user experience suck." I'm okay if a phone can't support certain features that the latest model includes. But the fact that an update actually made my older phone worse off, was quite the disappointment.
In fact ironically, these days many people upgrade less frequently because network providers are only selling contracts for 18/24 months rather than the 12 months they were 10 years previously.
As for your map being empty, that sounds like a bug, perhaps related to the DNS error I mentioned.
Thanks for the report.
End users might think they have it bad, but the development experience is basically an exercise in dealing with whatever hyped up shiny unfinished turd is floating down from on high. It's a shame because some aspects of the system are really damn good, but there is just so much crap.
Having seen all this develop has persuaded me that the future is lower level APIs. On the web that means asm.js, Canvas, indexeddb etc. (discarding HTML and CSS), and on Android it means C++ and OpenGL and staying the hell away from as much of the higher level parts as possible. (Bonus points for increased code portability). The reason for this is the lower level ones seem to reach stable predictability much faster. It is better/easier to bundle any high level UI toolkit in the application itself than to have to support rendering on four different versions of the toolkit.
Forking the SDK is explicitly not allowed, but the killer is if you want to make one device which carries the Google Apps you have to agree that all Android devices you make will. (i.e. you are forced to bundle Google Play Services on all devices). This is why Amazon do what they do and it remains a separate ecosystem.
That is not true. The SDK's source-code, like much of Android, is licensed under the APL 2.0 license. The SDK license you're referring to and that has restrictions applies to the binaries, as packaged and distributed by Google.
So I fear, that we need stronger consumer protection for software products. I do not know the situation in the US, but in the EU we have a mandated 2 year warranty for almost every product with very few sensible exceptions (food and the like).
We need the same for software. Features that are advertised have to be guaranteed. Of course software has bugs, so the law has to be about software getting fixed, not being perfect. Actually that is the same with physical products as they do not have to be replaced, they can be repaired, so this does not even make a difference.
There has to be some lightweight definition of non-functional requirements. This one is difficult and dangerous as the big players could unite and regulate the small ones out.
Related to that, double or triple the warranty periods. This is not so much an issue with smartphones and the like, as they become obsolete by superior successors or fashion, but with stuff like printers, vacuum cleaners or electric toothbrushes. Of course, this would hurt companies like hell and will never happen. I imagine in the long run, it would actually be super beneficial to those, who remain, because it would create a brand "Sold in the EU" much like "Made in Germany" with all the mythos of the deregulated Autobahn but the highly regulated warranties :D
I'm not convinced that this solves anything. When you buy a 50 euro/dollar vacuum do you expect it to have the same life expectancy as the 500 dollar vacuum made with higher quality parts? If the company is required to provide a 6 year warranty for a machine that they estimate to last 2 years, they will simply stop producing the cheaper vacuums, meaning everyone who wants a vacuum has to now pay 500 dollars. My knowledge of Vacuum cleaner economics is limited, granted, but I can't see how this works out well in the longer term for anyone, other than the people who would have anyway purchased the more expensive product (that normally comes with a lifetime/extended warranty from the manufacturer anyway)
The law makes distinctions between a manufacturers warranty (e.g. Apple says it's devices come with a 12 months warranty, which is true and legal.) and, and the manufacturers/retails obligation to resolve defects (Apple will repair/replace devices for free even after that 12 months).
The law is purposefully vague around this (I believe it says products should last for a reasonable period of time, depending on it's price and perceived quality), and different retailers/manufacturers honour this in different ways.
This lead to some interesting situations, like Apple covering mobile devices for 24 months since purchase OR last repair/replace date, so it's actually possible to get infinite warranty on a device if you get to replace every 24 months.
You have to adjust the price for the cheap vacuum cleaner in your mind. You are actually talking about several of them, because of their reduced lifetime.
Prices do not necessarily reflect the actual costs of the product directly sometimes not even remotely. Printers or game consoles for example are hardly or not at all profitable. The main purpose of prices is to differentiate the product classes, otherwise it would be harder to tell, which one actually is the higher class product. So that part of the pricing would not move at all.
Economics of scale. The higher quality parts will be produced in greater mass and become cheaper.
Innovation. If there is a need for cheaper vacuums, somebody will eventually find a way to build one.
Finally, the main point: Planned obsolescence . Products are actually designed to break directly after the 2 year guarantee. One could argue, that designing costs would actually fall, due to the obsolete step.
The software is not what is being sold; it's the hardware. The software is free.
Let me paint a slightly sillier picture; imagine your law existed and one man wrote a small toy project in his free time 5 years ago... some company (e.g. Samsung) starts shipping it as part of an appliance they sell. If there are bugs in the software then is the original man obligated to fix them? Is he breaking the law?
Open source software just isn't compatible with laws mandating that it be maintained in a given way and it makes little sense, in my mind, to create such laws.
So if Google ships shitty software to Samsung or Samsung uses free shitty software, but sells a device, claiming it has a barometer, which does not work due to shitty software, Samsung has to replace the device or repair the device in this case through a software update.
several are somewhat fixed on 5.0 (most by removing the feature) but nothing about support even nexus devices from 2.5 years ago.
3 were security ones confirmed by a few comments.
I've been getting obsolete emails on my low profile bugs since November all the way to Dec 25...
Google just gave up. i think nobody there care about users after yahoo stole JBQueru. they now focus exclusively on profit and easy/fun work (i.e. full focus on new versions because maintaining old, stable software is the job of interns)
Not quite the same thing, but Google and company sure look to believe they have better things to do....
But thanks for the CADT link, seems to sum up the line between old school nix and the more recent something-X attitudes.
"Attention-Deficit Teenegers" could be viewed as offensive to some, as it uses a medical diagnosis as a pejorative. Perhaps the author could argue that they are referring to typical teenage behavior, and not ADD, but that would to me be a completely ridiculous and artificial distinction.
So either we can't make fun of stereotypical teenage behavior (which is a slippery slope since about a lot of HN posts make fun of, or are directly hostile to, people in their early 20's) or have to admit that some medical categories are also things we can joke about.
Yes, there are other 3rd party manufacturers that sold devices based on such outdated versions up until recently. But why should it be Google's task to provide updates for these devices? That sounds like something that the manufacturers are supposed to do.
That being said, its extremely frustrating to see this happening.
Where? With the possible exception of China , after the Moto G and Android One, I'd expect that you could get a KitKat (or better) entry-level device pretty much anywhere.
 where there are entry-level KitKat devices, I'm just not sure of their quality since some major entry-level manufactureres (e.g. Xiaomi) are still on 4.2, not to mention that I wouldn't expect Google to go out of their way to support Chinese devices since they don't come with and generally can't use most Google services.
Xiaomi is running 4.3 on their cheapest device which would be the last device to get KitKat this month. Almost all their devices are running KitKat for a long time and they had released an unofficial testing ROM for 5.0 a week after the code was pushed. Xiaomi phones do come with Google services. Their flagship devices are expected a 5.0 early 2015. I would say they move faster than most brands.
I went from iPhone to their $100 model and find almost nothing that I could do before that I now cannot. Even in terms of performance and polish. Actually I can do slightly more thanks to Android Wear, but Xiaomi has less to do with that.
Most them are on 3G network and reception of a wifi network is an accident.
Right, because 4 year old electronics might just as well go into the landfill and if someone is dumb enough to use them still we don't care if they have a security liability in their pocket.
Of course you need to support your devices longer than 4 years. You need to support them as long as their design life, and if your design life is only 4 years then you're not aware of the trickle-down effect of hardware once bought.
However, if one sees Google as an OS vendor, then, considering that 60% of Android phones are running 4.2 or older (according to https://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html), supporting somewhat older phones would seem to be desirable.
The fact remains is that many of those phones are unlikely to receive updates through 5.0.. How are you supposed to support them if the hardware vendors are unwilling to update them?
It's extremely frustrating to have an issue thread full of agreeing constructive comments from users marked obsolete with no comment from the developers, when the issue is still annoying many users. It definitely gives the impression that Google gave up or does not care about users.
Hiding things from users isn't exactly good UX.
Makes it impossible to add events from websites.
It's very frustrating that there doesn't seem to be anyone at Google who looks at bugs. It's all about creating "cool" experiences without the tedious work of fixing bugs.
Android does support downloading .ics files, you just need to install a third-party app to handle the calendar integration. Is that ideal? Of course not. But it is bog-standard prioritization to close issues that have easy workarounds in favor of issues that don't (and that's before you get to the possible patent complications someone mentions late in the thread).
More generally, I'd argue that this is a missing feature in the proprietary Google Calendar app, and not an OS issue at all.
If you want special functionality associated with .ics files as you download them then that's a feature.
Which is this?
These ticket seem to fall into two buckets.
1) Pre Android 5.x bugs. I can understand why they don't want to invest here. Effort is definitely better spent trying to get more devices onto Android 5.x
2) Feature requests for apps. I bet a lot of these are either on a roadmap for a future version of Android, or are simply never going to be added.
Would that gesture have kept you motivated to report bugs?
There are a lot of ways they could have avoided that mess. Keepalive anything with recent comment traffic is one that springs to mind, since those comments are often along the lines of "yup, still an issue as of version X.Y.Z" or "Hey, it's been N years, any word on a fix?".
It's a "we're sorry, for whatever reason this issue is not getting traction. We are closing it because whatever the issue or reason is, whether it's on our side or the reporter's side, or something else, this problem is not effectively handled by this issue".
Closing as WontFix would inspire a thousand proclamations of "Google is never going to fix X!" when they may very well address it in the future.
I don't think what Google's done is ideal, I agree they should add a comment. However "Obsolete" is probably better than WontFix unless they really did analyse the problem and explicitly decide not to fix it.
The hell you do. If it was worth reporting it is worth fixing. Bugs are symptoms of underlying trouble and if you care about your product and about your users you fix them.
If you don't users will stop reporting bugs, you product will remain buggy and eventually users will move to other, less buggy products. Fix your bugs.
Right now if the community wants a new certain feature or they really hate one of the already implemented features, it has to make a big fuss about it on r/Android, an unofficial feedback channel.
Sure. Those are your absolute failures though, and should be regarded as any other failure by your team. When they're "won't fix because it's icky/not fun/goes against our prior fundamental assumptions", at least.
I wont even get started on how much information this is lacking for it to be actually executed. The point being that most of the ones in the list have not even been touched in over a year and more closely resemble a Christmas wishlist than actual issues. They should be closed since they are cluttering up the workflow of real problems and it would be a waste of an engineer's time to respond to them all adequately.
If they are still relevant a year later maybe you should go through and do something productive like creating a new issue with updated details.
* iCal .ics support (https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=1257)
* Phone burning battery while idle (https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=22878)
* API to access in-call audio (https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=2117)
* Unable to connect to hidden SSID (https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=1041)
* Allow longer SMS (https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=2318)
> If they are still relevant a year later maybe you should go through and do something productive like creating a new issue with updated details.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if the people filing these bugs or replying to them just gave up after waiting multiple years and switched to a custom ROM that does address the issue or even switched OS's.
I have experienced that the UI claimed that Play services were eating battery. But when i brought up a good old top report and looked at CPU time i find that Facebook was blocking the CPU from reaching sleep state.
killed the Facebook process and the problem went away rapidly.
And recently i have seen Plume having a similar issue. I can actually observe the CPU time rising when it is nowhere to be found outside of the top readout (no entry in the task switcher etc). But checking the Android battery readout i see nothing about Plume being a battery hog.
The android team is large and the closed bugs surely have been reviewed by the team before being closed (otherwise they're just closing randomly in which case: WTF?). So really, doesn't it make sense to give an actual reply for even just the more popular ones? We're not talking about millions here, we're talking about dozens...
Bug 82. Number one on the list. Been open 6 years. Patch offered and integrated into CyanogenMod for years. Y u no integrate the patch Google?
Similarly, barely anything appears to support ad-hoc, and I am not sure if many current users recall that it exists at all…
 an obvious hyperbole, but that's the feeling I get
a) GMail sends
b) Google Experience devices still can't recieve
But hey at least dat Material design amirite ? /s
Perhaps this is a sign someone's going to start triaging things, but I'd doubt it..
This sort of "fuck you" attitude towards legitimate feedback and valid bug reports from users doesn't bode well for Google, and indicates that any talk of "openness" of Android is just that - empty talk. If the Android development process is going to be a 100% closed, cathedral-type endeavour, I might as well get an iPhone.
I can just as easily change my search query and show you all the bugs that were in fact fixed . That seems to counter the claim that "the Android development process is going to be 100% closed". I'm not saying one OS is better than the other, but your comment seems more like angry ranting than a well thought out response.
Instead, Apple's forums provide a crude approximation of one.
At least they're honest. I can't be bothered to report bugs for most software I use, because it's enormously time-consuming and usually does nothing. Even for a relatively receptive Free Software project, I have to successfully argue that it's a bug, that it's not caused by some peculiarity of my system, that it's still present in the latest development version, and that the fix I propose is better than whatever poorly-thought-out fixes the "core developers" might think of on the spur of the moment. Better to work around it and move on.
For me, this is the last nail in the coffin. I won't be purchasing any more Nexus phones. Looking forward to the first Ubuntu phone in a few months.
The people who are unhappy with those bugs probably consider them very relevant.
It's the same as the Ubuntu(™) way.
The user (if still alive) can re-submit it for the newer version, if applicable and the cycle goes on.
I can't imagine how hard it is to manage something on the scale of Android, where it's so consumer-oriented, half of everyone with a phone (roughly) potentially could be using the bug tracker.
There may be some interesting room to build a bug tracker that can better semantically sort, and ensure better quality bug reports - templates for bug reports are a start, but there are very few if any good triage tools for the people on the other end of the system.
In this case, yes, there should have been at least a canned template response such as "if this still affects you,..." etc, but even that is difficult - with 50 people replying to a bug report, it's a good way to get 50 duplicates.
Ultimately, it's a sign where open source project management practices get increasingly hard the larger a project gets, and while it may be possible to keep up with the contributors, keeping up with userland can be an even larger feat.
In some ways, proprietary software has a it a LOT easier, and I don't envy the task.
While not every project can hire 15-30 extra people to manage and prune a gigantic issue tracker - Android probably can, and probably should, given the spirit of what it is.
Longer term, I still think we can do a lot better with bug tracker technology to provide more semantic views into what's there and needs to be done - eliminating the need to keep things pruned in this way. But we are no where close yet.
Of course that doesn't solve the difficult matter of actually fixing the bugs, but I'm sure the Android developers would sincerely appreciate it. Closing duplicates or reports with little information sets a standard for the bugs that do get fixed.
BLE stack is even worse in Lollipop.
Hardware supports it, but Google for some unknown reason just disables software support, it did it in the past with 4.3 BLE support and apparently nothing changed.
But yeah, the handling of bugs is awful, no comparison to the way Chromium handles bugs. They might not be perfect. But it feels much better handled.
Here's the list (all marked Obsolete silently by e...@google.com):
cevans => cev... (Chris Evans is known to be part of Project Zero.)
Given their censorship scheme, I can't help but wonder if e...@google.com means firstname.lastname@example.org?
If so, the culprit is likely Eric Schmidt.
EDIT: Okay, can anyone explain WHY they're downvoting this?
edit. title has been fixed.
This issue (note the id) has 6275 people following it and 1659 comments/activities.
Marking it obsolete with "(No comment was entered for this change.)" is kinda middle-finger-ish, don't you think?
Sharing a PC's wired connection via ad-hoc WiFi is still a pretty common use case. Mesh networking for communication in emergencies would be an awesome use case, but it depends on a lot of people using it for most of its benefit, and the installation procedure starts with "first, root your phone".
I am absolutely amazed how far Android has come. It feels so smooth and good. I thought about jumping to iPhone but my view of Android has changed drastically.
(My old phone was Galaxy Nexus and it was rife with randomly restarting during calls and sluggy OS).