The way I see it, this just moves the responsibility for safety to the manufacturers instead of the network. It's on the specific company then to provide adequate QA for their firmware before they release updates, or it reflects badly on them. This fiasco for example, tells me to never buy a Google phone since they apparently don't test their devices properly.
I'm not sure why it would be on the network to test devices anyway, it's not like every net card needs to be approved by ICANN or something. There should be standards to adhere to, if those are breached on either end, fines should follow.
This is probably like the fourth or fifth time issues calling 911 has come up for Pixel phones too. Google simply isn't capable of producing life-critical software.
> Google simply isn't capable of producing life-critical software.
I was stuck with a broken-down car at night before and needed to see my location on a map. Google had opted me into some A/B test on Google Maps that broke the entire app and made it unusable, I couldn't find any way to get out of this test.
Friends iPhone worked perfectly fine and ended up being used instead.
This was probably the biggest factor as to why I dropped Android and got an iPhone, you simply can't trust Google's software quality.
That's obviously true, after all Google's principal role in life is to make money though advertising not through saving lives.
As I've said elsewhere, ultimately it's the responsibly of the regulator in each country to ensure that phones can connect to emergency numbers irrespective of what operating system or apps are installed on them—so that's where the problem ought to rest.
That said, it's clear that that view doesn't sit well with a number of commentators here, for within seconds of posting it together with a solution and the reasons for why the comment was voted down sans comment. With attitudes like that about one can expect Google to prevaricate.
That leads me to think there's more to this than just a clash of software nuking emergency numbers. If I were the regulator I'd be asking for the source code from Google on threat of future non-approval of Pixel phones to see what nefarious antics Google is up to. (It's clear to me that it's just too coincidental that blocking 911 would happen unless Google is specifically monitoring the number for some other unspecified reason.)
I think you’re being unnecessarily hard on Google.
When someone dials 911, there is a ton of context data that needs to be collected, analyzed, and added to Google’s profile of the user to ensure the most relevant ads can be served in the future.
There’s location data, whether the user is driving, connected Bluetooth accessories, other phones in close proximity. All of this needs cutting edge ML processing so the user model can be updated with e.g. “likely domestic violence victim, recommend self defense courses” to improve the user experience the next time they search for a pie recipe.
Given the heavy lift of this advanced algorithmic processing, it’s inevitable that some minor bugs will creep in to ancillary functions like connecting the user’s phone call to emergency services. Even when that happens, it’s still a >95% success for the scenario.
> As I've said elsewhere, ultimately it's the responsibly of the regulator in each country to ensure that phones can connect to emergency numbers irrespective of what operating system or apps are installed on them—so that's where the problem ought to rest.
If you are selling a phone, you have to comply with phone regulations and it’s your responsibility to make it do phone things.
Blaming the regulator for Google’s error is a neat idea though.
"The way I see it, this just moves the responsibility for safety to the manufacturers instead of the network."
Perhaps so in the current circumstances, but ultimately it is the responsibly of the regulators to ensure the emergency numbers work.
As witnessed here, a number of commentators seem to have forgotten that their smartphones are first and foremost are telephones and not playtoy computers. Unfortunately, the computer aspect now seems to dominate—if this weren't a fact then these unfortunate incidents wouldn't have happened.
> their smartphones are first and foremost are telephones and not playtoy computers
I don't think that's true. A few years back when I was comparing phones, many reviews don't even mention how good they are at making calls. Both Millennials and Gen Z are notably phone-averse. [1][2] I think a modern smartphone is a portable network computer/camera/sensor-package, with the telephone bit being something like the human appendix.
As somebody in Gen X, it looks to me like the whole notion of "phone call" is a dying concept that only existed due to the technological limitations during the period 1880-2000. Think of it sort of like faxing: it made sense at the time.
Yes this. I've always disliked phone calls, especially with strangers. All service stuff should be accessible via SMS or email unless it's urgent. Then I can send and forget and they can reply when they're ready. No fumbling to get to the calendar that's on the same device you're trying up speak into.
> I think a modern smartphone is a portable network computer/camera/sensor-package, with the telephone bit being something like the human appendix.
A modern smartphone is a convergence of two devices: a PDA and a cell phone (this is more obvious with older devices like the Palm Treo 650). Once the telephone bit is no longer relevant (probably replaced by a data-only cellular modem), it will go back to being just a PDA.
The QCI (QoS Class Identifier) for carrier provided voice and video (Android only) calls is generally much higher than normal data, and carriers monitor call handoff reliability between towers, Mean Opinion Scores (MOS, a rating of the audio experience of each call), and device specific performance.
"Making calls" isn't a feature phones compete on - it either works or it doesn't, and I hope a review would let me know if calling was defective on a phone. Otherwise, there's no point in including information on making calls - it's a basic feature everybody who buys a phone expects to have.
It's a bit like saying "most car reviews don't review whether the car stays still when parked in a garage or not!"
That's just not the case. Phone audio quality varies significantly between smartphone models due to variations in speaker, mic, and noise reduction. And that's before we get to fancier things like Wi-Fi Calling and HD Voice. The whole reason I was looking for that in reviews is that people had a hard time hearing me when I called from my previous cellphone, and I also noticed that some people I was talking to had much clearer voice calls than others.
If you had difficulty being heard on a phone, then your phone has failed at being a phone.
Also, splitting hairs over phone audio quality is beside the point. The point of a phone is to be a phone, smart or not. I would be livid if my fridge could play games but not provide cooling. A smart fridge doesn’t negate the primary function.
If audio quality is beside the point, then it sounds like you agree with me that the primary point of a smartphone is no longer that of being a phone.
I also think your "smart fridge" analogy is hilariously off target. Survey data indicates that the actual phone calls are a relatively small fraction of smartphone use: https://www.reviews.org/mobile/cell-phone-addiction/
I agree that the primary purpose of a cellphone was once making calls. I'm just saying that day is long past. That transition started as texting became popular, but smartphones drastically accelerated it.
> a number of commentators seem to have forgotten that their smartphones are first and foremost are telephones and not playtoy computers.
Speaking for myself at least, I can tell you that it's not so much that I forgot as that I don't care and also you're wrong. Yes, it's good - perhaps even important - that the computer I carry in my pocket every day can also theoretically make phone calls, but it is most certainly first and foremost a computer.
This is such an uncontroversial take, I’m really surprised to see it get so downvoted on HN. I upgraded my phone the day after it froze when I tried to make a call. I never want to be in a situation where I can’t make an emergency call. That’s sortof the whole point of a “TELEPHONE”??
Because for many (probably the vast majority) it's not true. Their smartphone is first and foremost a portable computer. The ability to make calls is secondary.
it's a simple reason - google relies on automated tests and doesn't do manual testing at all.
if they did plenty of bugs on the home scree launcher would've been found.
source: I used a pixel 3a for about 3 years, now I have a pixel 6a.
all errors I have run into are things only a human can find. low laying fruit.
Most people buy their phone from a network provider / carrier. And when someone goes wrong, customers complain to the network - not the manufacturer.
That's why networks test firmware. Because they face the complaints and chargebacks when the phone breaks.
Mobile networks are, in effect, private networks. Your employer may prohibit certain devices from connecting to their in-office LAN. Or they may insist on specific devices which they know work well with their equipment.
Mobile networks can ban equipment which is stolen. I assume they can also de-register an IMEI if the handset if interfering with the network. Most countries have a regulator who can issue fines for disrupting the airwaves. But they are often unable to investigate non-systemic issues.
Perhaps staying inside the network is more common in the US, but from a European perspective it's unlikely for a device to stay at one provider at all times. Half the time you're roaming at another network due to missing towers or if you drive 100km and end up in a different country you won't see your original provider at all until you return.
As such, all networks must support all devices for the system to retain some shred of functionality and standardisation is key. Providers can't just pick and choose what to support if they want to maintain credibility. I would imagine it makes far more sense for some international org to do reviews, but at the absence of that the manufacturers themselves need to guarantee compatibility or they will be pushed out of the market by those that do.
I would assume that will run afoul of EU regulations which forced the providers to enable roaming without additional costs. If providers could just deny roaming phones they could use that to circumvent the regulations (which are unpopular with network operators).
In the case of a phone with defective emergency calling software/firmware/hardware they must have a means of detecting and blocking such phones from making spurious calls, right?
If they already have this capacity in place then detecting and blocking out-of-network phones from roaming should be trivial.
I’m not sure this isn’t a dated take, unfortunately. Perhaps this would have been an accurate set of statements back in 2012 or so.
1/ Roaming is a big factor (before COVID, and now in a post-COVID world too). I’ve spent more time on carrier networks which are NOT my ‘home network’ in the past 3-4 weeks than not, in many different countries, managed by many different regulators. I didn’t need a new phone for each country, a software update for my phone, instead it just worked.
2/ I’m not unique in buying devices from the manufacturer directly - specifically, I use the iPhone Upgrade Program. Lots of friends buy direct from Apple or via electronics stores like Best Buy but every 2-3 years. I hear very few people who “got their phone from Verizon” (but I’m sure this still happens, too!). [1]
3/ At least in the Apple ecosystem these days theft and loss is handled with Activation Lock, which is IMO more effective than IMEI blocking because it works regardless of cellular network and without relying on any assumptions networks may share a blocklist of reported stolen IMEIs amongst themselves.
I'm not sure why it would be on the network to test devices anyway, it's not like every net card needs to be approved by ICANN or something. There should be standards to adhere to, if those are breached on either end, fines should follow.