an hour ago by CJefferson
Note that the original title is "Sign-in on Android devices running Android 2.3.7 or lower will not be allowed starting September 27". Android 3 was released February 22, 2011 -- I haven't seen any devices running Android that old in a while.
an hour ago by walrus01
Four years ago, in some of the poorest developing nation markets on earth, the local currency equivalent of $60 Android phones for sale in local stores (random cheap Mediatek chipset and 3.5" screens), were running either Android 4.0 or 4.4
an hour ago by vagrantJin
Can confirm this to be accurate. My own device is running 5.1.1
44 minutes ago by toast0
Android 3 wasn't generally available for phones; it was mostly tablets.
an hour ago by prophesi
The title is a bit clickbaity. This is for Android versions 2.3.7 and lower, which was released in September 21, 2011.
an hour ago by ainiriand
I think the title is perfectly accurate. That is exactly what's going to happen.
an hour ago by yupper32
It's click-baity because it withholds necessary information in order to get you to click on it.
Saying the version number or release date would stop most people from clicking on it, because it matters much less.
33 minutes ago by tantalor
That's how all headlines work.
29 minutes ago by mdp2021
Stochastic language ("Topitanians are strong"), "S is P" = "The median of S is P" = "Android 7 will..." (Very stretched interpretation.)
Logical language ("[All/Some] Topitanians are strong"), "S is P" = "All S are P" = "All old Android versions...". Without an explicit quantifier, a statement to be interpreted in logical language easily defaults to using the universal "All": the statement "Coal burns", if not stochastic (envisaging exceptions) but logical, is meant to express that all of the instances do.
"Old Android versions" does not default to "Some old Android versions".
an hour ago by n4bz0r
I wouldn't go as far as saying "perfectly". What is "old"? I clicked thinking my Android 4 device (which I use daily) is fucked.
an hour ago by jfoster
It could be much more exact by mentioning the version & date that it was released on.
an hour ago by toast0
It's Android, release date of the OS doesn't matter so much as when was the last device that doesn't upgrade past 2.3.7 released and/or when did that device leave mass retail. Or some other threshold.
A ton of 2.3 devices weren't upgradable to 4. And there were a lot of devices made with 2.3 well after 4 was available. The numbers are probably small though, WhatsApp (where I used to work) ended support for 2.3.7 in early 2020 because the user numbers no longer justified the effort to keep that working. Usage was enough to justify almost a two year notice period though.
an hour ago by dpwm
The title of the page conveys more information, albeit in more words:
> Sign-in on Android devices running Android 2.3.7 or lower will not be allowed starting September 27
35 minutes ago by dleslie
I have a Nexus S with a decent battery; and while it _can_ log in, the relevant Google services and apps that it ships with are broken beyond usability.
It would be nice if Google endeavoured to keep old Android working and security patched, rather than force a faster e-waste cycle.
32 minutes ago by gjsman-1000
Android 2.3+ accounts for less than 0.2% of devices. It doesn't really force an e-waste cycle when its that microscopic already. The e-waste cycle has already occurred.
By that logic we'd still be supporting the Space Shuttle, the NES, the Sega Genesis, the Apple II, the Altair, the 80286, the Laserdisc player, the Video CD, the Kodak cameras... We should never drop legacy, ever.
Plus, your Nexus S actually got 4.1.2, which means it's still supported even after this.
26 minutes ago by pizza234
Android 8.0 is not supported anymore, and it suffers from very serious security vulnerabilities.
Versions up to 8.0 constitute around 20% of the phones (as of June 2021¹), which creates a significant amount of e-waste, particularly embarrassing when considering phones like the Nexus 5x, which is a perfectly usable model.
[¹] https://www.statista.com/statistics/921152/mobile-android-ve...
23 minutes ago by gjsman-1000
I'm talking mainly about the OG article (which discontinues 2.3 and earlier from Google Services), not Android's terrible long-term support compared to iOS which wholly deserves criticism.
But they can still access Google.
9 minutes ago by snypher
How many gajillion Android devices are sold per year? It seems misleading to use a percentage of a giant unknown number.
Edit; if there are 3 billion active android devices, this is putting 6 million into landfill?
5 minutes ago by gjsman-1000
It's not like they still won't work. You won't be able to sign into your Google account on them, but you can still use the web browser.
Honestly, if having every other app than Google drop support for your device didn't motivate you to upgrade, Google dropping support probably won't either.
26 minutes ago by djaychela
I'm not sure that logic holds - many of the devices you mention will still work (space shuttle aside) - whereas that will not be the case with these older android devices.
While it may be 0.2%, it'd be interesting to see what numbers that actually equates to.
12 minutes ago by ncr100
Can a person download Google Chrome without Google Play Store / Google Account?
I tried and failed.
an hour ago by remus
I wonder what proportion of android devices are running <3.0?
25 minutes ago by opencl
The stats from Google lump everything under 4.1 together at 0.2%.
I would link to it but Google removed the chart from the web a while ago and just tells you to look at it in Android Studio's new project wizard.
an hour ago by orf
I wonder what the technical reason behind this is?
an hour ago by m45t3r
Probably TLS version and maybe Google wants to drop Google Play Services from very old devices?
an hour ago by spankalee
Those phones are insecure.
34 minutes ago by dleslie
Only because Google stopped supporting them.
22 minutes ago by cyberlurker
Did Apple also drop support for equally old iPhones? I believe they provide security updates for at least 5 years, but I’m not sure.
29 minutes ago by ggggtez
The actual problem is OEMs. These devices have no auto update, so Verizon/Samsung etc has to write the updates afaik.
18 minutes ago by pvarangot
Yeah because everything after 2.3 isn't...
The reason is that it's not cost effective.
31 minutes ago by ggggtez
My guess: new TLS bug, or new WebView bug. These systems have no way to update without carriers back porting fixes, and Android H had such a small run that I doubt any carriers are willing to back port whatever fix is necessary.
40 minutes ago by sslayer
Imagine if it was your 10 year old Tesla!
38 minutes ago by gjsman-1000
Imagine if it was your Tesla after 10 years of no software upgrades.
(Except all Teslas are still receiving updates.)
And also signing into Google on Tesla accomplishes what exactly?
19 minutes ago by tempest_
They still updating that original roadster ?
35 minutes ago by ggggtez
This assumes that your phone hasn't had any updates for 10 years.
If your Tesla had no updates for 10 years, you probably would also be wise to not check your email on it.
Daily digest email
Get a daily email with the the top stories from Hacker News. No spam, unsubscribe at any time.