Google Pixel 4a Battery Update: A Deep Dive
This article explores a controversial software update for the Google Pixel 4a that significantly impacts battery performance, leaving many users frustrated. The update, released years after the phone’s launch, reduces battery capacity and charging speed, raising questions about Google’s communication and the reasons behind its implementation.
The Unexpected Update and its Consequences
Google rolled out a software update related to its Battery Performance Program for the Pixel 4a. This update drastically affects battery life, causing significant inconvenience for users. Many feel the phone is now unusable and are critical of Google’s lack of transparency concerning the update’s purpose and sudden appearance.
The update’s impact goes beyond simple battery drain. Several key features are disabled, including:
- Adaptive Charging: This feature learns user charging habits to optimize battery health and longevity. Its deactivation negatively affects battery lifespan.
- Charging Time ETAs: Accurate estimations of charging completion times are no longer provided.
- Maximum Charging Speed: The phone’s maximum charging speed is halved.
Uncovering the Technical Details
The investigation into the update reveals that the Pixel 4a uses two different battery variants, both manufactured by Sunwooda Electric but with cells from different suppliers: Lishen (LSN) and Amperex Technology Limited (ATL). The update specifically targets phones with LSN batteries.
The update’s core change involves reducing the maximum voltage of LSN batteries from 4.45V to 3.95V. Although seemingly a small reduction (11%), this has a much larger impact on usable battery capacity. Lithium-ion batteries have a usable voltage range; reducing the maximum voltage significantly shrinks this range. The result is an approximately 44% reduction in usable battery capacity.
This is further compounded by the halving of the maximum charging current (from 1C to 0.5C). Charging speed is directly proportional to the current, leading to significantly longer charging times.
Furthermore, the update introduces a battery health check for ATL cells, reporting issues after 800 charge cycles. However, this does not trigger the same drastic performance limitations imposed on the LSN batteries.
Beyond Voltage: Software Changes and Emergency Measures
The update’s impact extends beyond the kernel-level voltage changes. The Android system itself incorporates changes including:
- Battery Icon Change: During charging, the standard battery icon is replaced with one displaying an exclamation mark.
- Notification about the Replacement Program: Users are informed about Google’s battery replacement program.
Analysis of the Android source code reveals further alterations. The commits suggest a rushed development process, possibly explaining the limited documentation and the disabling of features like charging ETA and Adaptive Charging. These likely became unusable due to the update’s impact on capacity and charging profiles, rendering the algorithms underlying those features inaccurate.
Crucially, the update was designated as an Emergency Maintenance Release (EMR), a designation that bypasses standard certification processes. This suggests the urgency required to push out this software change. The fact a developer’s local machine was used, along with the delayed release of the related kernel source code, strengthens the impression of haste.
Speculation on the True Cause
While Google has not publicly explained the reason for the update, the rushed nature and emergency classification strongly suggest a serious concern. The company’s actions, including the removal of older builds, point towards a possible safety issue with the Lishen batteries requiring immediate action. This situation highlights Google’s difficult position; revealing the specific safety concerns might raise liability concerns, but keeping silent raises broader user trust issues.
The situation underlines the complexity of battery technology and its influence on software updates and user experience. Google’s actions, though controversial, may have aimed to address a safety risk associated with a specific batch of batteries. However, the lack of transparent communication has understandably resulted in widespread user disappointment and distrust. The full story behind this update may remain shrouded in uncertainty, but the details presented shed light on the severity of the issue and Google’s response.
