When Google Leaves Users Behind
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/001097.html
I was just now reading over the publicity materials related to
Google's newly announced (but long rumored) "Project Fi" wireless
plan/experiment today, and found myself pondering a question. To wit:
If I had the currently required Nexus 6 smartphone, would I be
applying to be included in this new mobile offering?
And I realized the answer was no. Not so much because my current phone
and plan are completely adequate to my needs, but rather for a couple
of more depressing reasons.
One of these is the painful realization that I wouldn't necessarily
have confidence that Google won't be abandoning this effort in
relatively short order, triggering possible hassles at the egress end
of the offer. Perhaps Project Fi signals the birth of a wonderful,
consumer friendly, disruptive change to mobile that is long overdue.
Or, Google might decide in a year or two just to pull the plug on it
with short notice -- there are certainly well remembered precedents
for the latter outcome from Google.
Another reason for my own current lack of enthusiasm for Project Pi is
my personal embarrassment (I've consulted to Google) at the shabby way
Google has treated -- and continues to treat -- many of their existing
Android users.
I'm an enormous fan of Android, and totally committed to the Android
ecosystem. But for the life of me I can't find valid justifications
for Google's abandonment of literally vast numbers of Android users
currently using older devices. Not everyone can afford to treat
smartphones and tablets as easily disposable, especially when they
seem to functioning perfectly well from the users' perspective.
Yet so many of these users are actually vulnerable to serious security
flaws because Google refuses to patch the versions of Android still
being run by large numbers of persons.
Google has a range of explanations/excuses for this. Technical
difficulty with backports. Uncooperative carriers. Concentrating
efforts on the latest and greatest (more on that in a moment).
It's notable how quickly Google abandoned users even of their own
flagship phones like the Galaxy Nexus when purchased directly from
Google, where carrier cooperation wasn't even an issue (Google's
excuse in this case was lack of driver support from a chip vendor, but
somehow third-party hackers found a way around that problem.)
Given, no phone or other device lasts forever. Yet Google has (to my
knowledge) not even directly, proactively informed users of these
older devices about the security issues associated with these units,
nor to inform them regarding the useful workarounds that actually do
exist in many of these cases. Is it better for users to proceed using
their devices in blitheful ignorance of these issues? I don't think
so, anyway.
Again, I'm not suggesting that Google be required to update these
older units forever. But why isn't there at least an official, well
known Google page that directly and specifically explains the security
status of these devices and the aforementioned workaround procedures?
Why must users depend on (not alway trustworthy) outside articles (or
blogs!) to learn about these matters? Google should take ownership of
these important issues, rather than depending on others to dribble out
such crucial information.
Google's seemingly endless juggernaut of great products belies
problems that are not by any means unique to Google, but can ensnare
large firms of any stripe, especially if they're engineering oriented.
It's all too easy to focus on the latest and greatest, while too
quickly deemphasizing serious consideration and maintenance of older
products used by fewer users. Yet at the scale of many such firms,
even relatively small percentages of users can represent very large
numbers of actual human beings, many of whom are particularly in need
of continuing attention, by virtue of their inability to buy into
those wondrous new devices at the rate common for the early adopters.
And let's face it, engineering-oriented firms are often structured in
a manner where career advancement is largely predicated on working in
the bleeding edge of development -- there's little incentive for
employees to seek roles maintaining older systems, backporting
security patches, or refactoring code.
But these are all crucial roles, for the ways in which a firm supports
all users, including those not in the new products adoption forefront,
directly impacts public perception of how a firm's newer offerings
will be perceived, and how that firm's treatment of users overall will
be judged.
Something to think about perhaps, the next time you hear of a possibly
great new product being announced. For one of the ways through which
we can most clearly anticipate the future -- even our technological
futures -- is to understand how we've been treated in the past.
Be seeing you -- in the future.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein ([email protected]): http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Founder:
- Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
- PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com/privacy-info
Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org/pfir-info
Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Google+: http://google.com/+LaurenWeinstein
Twitter: http://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com
_______________________________________________
pfir mailing list
http://lists.pfir.org/mailman/listinfo/pfir
