View Single Post
Posts: 73 | Thanked: 228 times | Joined on Oct 2019
#2936
Originally Posted by Maemish View Post
What puzzles me though with the thread is that many suspected that the suspicious company updater would not be needed anymore after the device got Google certificate - but the team has not commented on that. Many now suspect that on the next update they would get rid of that suspicious partner from their system - but it is a suspicion, not priomise from the F(x)team.

Can it be removed or not? If it can, why no comments about it? If not, how to comment, what to say? So yes, the case is still open and the thread does not yet include any conversation ending answers.
I'm not well versed into these things, but I think people are conflating 2 things to be the same. I think that if you'd do the entire process through Google, you have to first pay and get the device/firmware certified, and then pay to use Google's services to send the firmware to devices. There are separate costs here for Google, one to pay people examining the device to certify it, and one for server costs to host and upload the firmware from.

Seems that F(x)tec chose to do the first thing via Google, in order to get support for Google Pay and the like. But chose to do the second thing via a third party, probably because it's cheaper than Google but doesn't have any direct negatives like no longer having Google Pay support.

So, just because they got Google's certification doesn't mean they can just change to a different OTA provider. They probably could, but whether they have Google's certification isn't really relevant to this I think. It would come down to if F(x)tec thinks it's better to use a different OTA provider, and if they can afford it. But again, I'm not that well versed in this either.
 

The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Shirabe For This Useful Post: