Android Update Alliance Already Struggling 364
adeelarshad82 writes "Earlier this year many Android phone vendors and U.S. wireless carriers made a long-awaited promise, which was to push timely OS updates to all new Android phones. Seven months in and especially with the release of Google Android 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich), PCMag decided to reach out to all those vendors and wireless carriers to see how things were coming along. Brace yourselves Android fans, you're not going to like the responses."
Netcraft confirms (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Netcraft confirms (Score:5, Insightful)
Irrelevant. The kernel isn't the issue, the applications require a certain level of hardware to work effectively. If that wasn't enough, all these companies are in the business of selling new units, not keeping old tech going on the latest OS and applications.
Apple do the same, they just have a tiny selection of devices and only churn a single model (storage options vary) once a year, or thereabouts. These other companies have a shotgun approach and have to compete on function/price between themselves, not on whether it has a fruit badge on the back. No mobile device company wants their current gen tech to last longer than the next incarnation. Just look the the home PC market to see where that leads. Sooner of later the tech is sufficient for the vast majority of people. We're a way off this with mobile tech, but it can't be far away. Quad core CPUs out in a few months, 1GB RAM in a fucking phone, plenty of storage for most people, screen of all sizes from the tiny iphone's up to near slate sizes. Two years, three? Not long that's for sure.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Most of us can't peek under the covers, so it's entirely possible that Samsung starts porting new versions of Android early and really are running into a significant number of kernel related issues. I will give them that.
I think where Samsung is falling down is in keeping the users informed. Months go by with either silence or a grudging "we're working on it" with no indication of whether your model is included in "it" or how long "working" is estimated to take, and the users start to become justified in
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
fixing the kernel bugs is pretty straightforward - they're clearly bugs.
now - a committee designing with 20 carrier product managers "what do the customers want?" takes time and lots of it and the end result is a piece of shit.
it's pretty clear samsung didn't allocate much resources to epic 4g or had trouble even defining what should be in the release(or the carrier couldn't figure it out - also you should note that between may and june there's the "dead" months of summer when nothing happens, which could
Re:Netcraft confirms (Score:5, Interesting)
Not really. The lack of a stable ABI *is* a major problem, because it means that every time a new version of Android gets released that needs a newer kernel than the latest "official" one available for the phone, every proprietary loadable kernel module (for things like 4G data on carriers like Sprint) ends up breaking. As far as I know, not even the Nexus S 4G has buildable driver source available for its wimax interface, which is why every guerrilla ICS ROM for it has broken 4G. It's even worse for HTC phones, because they don't even release their drivers as proper loadable kernel modules -- they just compile them straight into a monolithic binary blob, then rip out the proprietary bits and dump the unbuildable kernel source on the curb.
This is the #1 problem Google really needs to solve -- binary driver breakage every time the kernel gets upgraded. Maybe they could create a stable thunking layer that allows a .ko built for a 3.(n+X) kernel to keep working on a 3.(n+Y) kernel, so every new Android release won't subject us to the usual cycle of 4G data that's instantly and semi-eternally broken. Or maybe just force the phone makers to blindly compile and release new unsupported proprietary .ko files for drivers with the latest kernel within 5 days of Google's official source drop, with the usual disclaimers that the new .ko files are untested, unwarranted, will cause birth defects, and might make you hunting for chocolate at 3am.
Re:Netcraft confirms (Score:5, Insightful)
Only for driver vendors that refuse to cooperate with the kernel community. They want to take advantage of Linux as a platform but not contribute to its success. The Kernel should be forced into a static ABI set for the sake of uncooperative, unhelpful vendors.
Sounds like a pile of shitty hardware vendors and shitty handset vendors. Pointing at the kernel ABIs is incorrect.
Or maybe these hardware vendors could actually start upstreaming their shit. Google too, since their shit infects so many drivers so deeply that many have to be rewritten to be pushed upstream.
Re:Netcraft confirms (Score:5, Insightful)
> Sounds like a pile of shitty hardware vendors and shitty handset vendors. Pointing at the kernel ABIs is incorrect.
Great strategy. It worked brilliantly as a way to bring open-source winmodem drivers to Linux. Oh, wait... it didn't, did it? We basically had proprietary binary drivers for Lucent winmodems that worked under a few specific distros, and IBM eventually did the same for THEIR audio/modem chipset for Thinkpads.
Yeah, someone finally did develop a true open-source HSP driver for his college thesis a couple of years ago and released it to the community, but for all intents and purposes, there were never open-source Linux winmodem drivers until almost a decade after they ceased to actually *matter* to anybody. It won't do us much good to get true open-source wimax drivers for a phone like the Nexus S 7 years after Sprint has switched to LTE.
This IS the #1 fundamental problem of American Android users, because it's the one problem we can't fix ourselves. Bootloaders get cracked, and just about any phone can be JTAG-reflashed if you're really determined. But without a way to use a radio modem (or camera, or GPS, or ???) .ko compiled for 3.x under a 3.y kernel, we'll be forever running into brick walls every time a new version of Android gets released, and forced to choose between ${new-version} and fast data/gps/camera/etc.
Re:Netcraft confirms (Score:4, Insightful)
Source Code isn't usually the problem. The bigger problems are locked boot loaders. AND for things like Drivers which they think hold all sorts of "proprietary" secrets they don't want to give away.
Here is a suggestion, since my phone is no longer supported by you Verizon/Motorola, please release everything we need to support our own damn phones. My phone is exactly one year old, and won't get ICS because ... well they can't be bothered.
Re:Netcraft confirms (Score:4, Insightful)
It is the shotgun approach that is the problem.
If HTC only released 2-3 models a year(plus localized variants for CDMA, GSM , etc) they would sell more overall units which means they could buy more product in bulk, which would lower the costs and increase their revenue. Apple is making money on the iphones because they are buying parts for cheap in bulk bulk quanties.
a smaller selection makes software modifications faster and easier too, and allows you to update them more easily.
Someday one of the android companies will realize quanity applies to more than just end products but also product units sold too.
Re:Netcraft confirms (Score:4, Informative)
It would solve hardware driver issues, but carriers also do a lot of customization with apps and skins. Sense UI, Motoblur and Carrier IQ don't depend on a stable ABI.
Re:Netcraft confirms (Score:5, Insightful)
"Pledges" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Pledges" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Google needs to set certain rules regarding using Android on mobiles, and that includes updating your phones
Yeah, except then Android would just be another proprietary cell phone OS.
You can even leave the source open, just demand that companies respect those rules if they want to use the trademark Android.
Then they won't use the trademark. So what?
Re:"Pledges" (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not an actual argument; it's just a label you're attaching to the idea of quality control. Platforms need leadership or they descend into chaos. Look at desktop Linux.
Re:Apple Troll SuperKendall's Alt Account (Score:4, Insightful)
Owning 30% of the market while only selling two generation models at any one time is hardly a failure for Apple. Considering that there are dozens upon dozens of different Android models it's only natural they'd have more market share.
No, it's really not (Score:3)
Considering that there are dozens upon dozens of different Android models it's only natural they'd have more market share.
There really is no logical causation between having many models and marketshare, no matter how often it is repeated.
If there were, everyone would just release more models.
There are many models of tablets that run non-Apple operating systems. Apple out sells them combined by 2-1.
Re: (Score:3)
Google did not destroy Apple's place in the market. The big loser to Android was Symbian, which was phased out by Nokia and held the top spot when Android came out, not iOS.
You must also keep in mind that all iPhones are high-end smartphones whereas Android powers quite a number of budget devices.
Finally, Google has admitted that 2/3 of its mobile hits come from iOS devices [ultrasn0w.ca]. I think that means a lot more about the platforms' real success than their market shares, and let us not even get started with app s
Re: (Score:3)
Android already is licensed from Google. That makes Android proprietary software too.
No, it means that it is not in the public domain. Proprietary does not mean "licensed," it means "licensed under proprietary terms." If we are going to have a free/libre cell phone OS, then we cannot promote proprietary licensing, and that includes licenses that forbid forking or that require upgrading.
Ultimately, the goal should be to open cell phones, so that your cell phone gives you as much freedom as a typical laptop can. Opening the source of Android was a step in the right direction; this is
Re:"Pledges" (Score:5, Informative)
Don't mistake AOSP for Android. Android is only available to OHA members, and it included stuff like Honeycomb source code (which was under a very restrictive license), as well as access to the Google Apps, which make Android, well, Android (e.g., the Google Marketplace - it's extremely difficult to get apps without Marketplace access - it's easier to pirate than to try to find an official download).
Cyanogen is using AOSP. And periodically Google pushes code from Android into AOSP. But Google controls the Android stuff for OHA members.
Google can very well dictate update terms - they dictated how the Honeycomb source code was to be distributed, after all. They even dictated what you can and cannot do with the source and what customizations you could apply.
Chinese manufacturers and everyone else using AOSP can disobey at will because they're using the free license, but the OHA members getting early code access and such cannot. Hell, Google can make it a part of the Google Apps licensing agreement.
Re:"Pledges" (Score:4, Insightful)
You cannot have a good OS if there isn't someone who organizes and runs things, and that includes providing updates to older phones.
So who is pushing out the updates for GNU/Linux then? You know, the OS that is widely used (at least in servers, supercomputers, and other demanding computing environments) and whose core components are maintained by dozens of different organizations? Yeah, you can have a good OS without having one entity controlling everything; there are numerous Linux distros out that there help keep packages up-to-date on their users' systems, and they each have different ideas on how to do that.
In the real world no one actually cares if the mobile OS is open source or not
They certainly do, they just do not use the terms "open source" or "free software." People do generally care about the fact that their phones will not allow them to do the things they want to do, just not enough to become experts on how to hack a phone and avoid the restriction systems.
for majority of people using a proprietary OS isn't "taking a step backward".
Probably because the majority of people are already using a locked-down cell phone that restricts what they are able to do. Go take someone's jailbroken phone and exchange it for one that is locked down and cannot be jailbroken, and I am pretty sure you will hear them complaining about it.
Re:"Pledges" (Score:5, Insightful)
They do. If you want a phone like that, buy a Nexus.
Re:"Pledges" (Score:5, Funny)
They do. If you want a phone like that, buy a Nexus.
I tried, but Sean Young isn't for sale.
Re: (Score:3)
CyanogenMod Fanboy (Score:5, Informative)
Screw their pledge, just let us root our phones easily. CyanogenMod has treated me better than any carrier or handset maker, and it will never ever come with Carrier IQ: http://www.cyanogenmod.com/blog/cyanogenmod-will-never-have-carrier-iq [cyanogenmod.com]
They plan Ice Cream Sandwich via CM9 for almost any CM7 (current version of CM) compatible phone they already support, except for really old models like the G1.
Re:CyanogenMod Fanboy (Score:5, Insightful)
Screw their pledge, just let us root our phones easily.
This.
What burns my ass is how phone makers continually work to "secure" the devices they make against not criminals, but the people who actually purchase and own said devices.
Re:CyanogenMod Fanboy (Score:5, Insightful)
My personal experience: HTC never released any update for my phone, which was running (a very buggy implementation of) Android 1.6. For half a year after the phone was released, they told us users that they were trying to port Eclair to the phone, and then they dropped any effort, saying that the phone hardware couldn't support it - coincidentally, they launched a new equivalent phone model natively running Froyo.
Then I decided to void my warranty and I installed CyanogeMod on my phone: now I'm running the latest version of Gingerbread, and it runs acceptably well, certainly much better than the buggy Donut rom that HTC had originally put on the phone.
A few hackers, in their spare time, with no documentation about the hardware, and without the software keys theoretically required to obtain full access to it, managed to do what the multinational corporation that designed the phone said was impossible to do. To me, this means that manufacturers do not want you to be able to upgrade your phone's software without buying new hardware for them. Hardware fragmentation, kernel drivers, processing power are just excuses they adduce. If Cyanogen can do it, so HTC/Samsung/Motorola could.
Re: (Score:3)
"A few hackers, in their spare time, with no documentation about the hardware, and without the software keys theoretically required to obtain full access to it, managed to do what the multinational corporation that designed the phone said was impossible to do. "
Point taken. However, you might be surprised at how little resourcefulness can be found in multinational corporations. The best talent doesn't always find its way there, and sometimes a small number of brilliant individuals can make progress stagge
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Pledges" (Score:5, Funny)
I pledge to mod up!
Re: (Score:2)
To answer your question about why anyone would be surprised, it's because Google is still held in a glowing light, at least on tech sites, and people still take them for their word.
Would those people be interested in buying some oceanfront property in Nebraska?
Re: (Score:3)
Good point. Google does have a lot of credibility after quite a few failed promises. On the other hand they have also delivered some amazing technology for free for a very long time.
Fragmentation (Score:5, Insightful)
Android is more like a collection of related but not entirely compatible operating systems. The inability to have a consistent version of the operating system across current smartphones is really surprising for something that's supposed to be an open source project, but one of the big drawbacks of Android is how much control Google gives the carriers over your phone.
Re:Fragmentation (Score:5, Insightful)
The same is true for Linux isn't it?
From a software vendor point, it's one of the main reasons not to develop for such a platform. Supporting multiple Windows versions is already a pain for a smaller software developer.
Re: (Score:3)
Linux does quite well for embedded. The question is are phones more like embedded systems or more like desktops?
Re: (Score:3)
Android is more like a collection of related but not entirely compatible operating systems. The inability to have a consistent version of the operating system across current smartphones is really surprising for something that's supposed to be an open source project, but one of the big drawbacks of Android is how much control Google gives the carriers over your phone.
Sounds like someone has very little understanding of what Android is or does. The source can be compiled and run on nearly any device bearing the "Android" name, the big issue is that they are each so unique that it takes a significant amount of dedicated code for each device to perform to the fullest of its ability. Trying to make a version that literally ran on every single phone and tablet would result in a monstrously bloated OS that was impossible to update on its own anyway, so these sorts of complai
Re: (Score:2)
Not without tremendous support costs, and mobile developers have been public about this. In addition to the software APIs, there are multiple hardware devices to target with varying capabilities. Even the very existence of variable screen resolutions completely screws up the ability to have a single, unified, cohesive interface across multiple phones.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've always loved that argument. It's like saying McDonald's shouldn't improve its food because it's the most popular restaurant, or that Justin Bieber is a better artist than Mozart because he sells more music per year.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If Google isn't careful, the problems may become great enough to allow Microsoft to slip in and gain non-trivial marketshare, at the very least in the enterprise where they have long-standing relations. Based on Eric Schmidt's recent remarks, Google is betting on having so much marketshare that people don't have a choice but to work with them, whether they "like it or not."
Re:Why do you think.. (Score:5, Informative)
is it though ?
http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-versions.html [android.com]
2.2 + 2.3 = 85%
Add in 2.1 and you get to 95%
95% covered in 3 minro revisions doesn't seem too bad, especially with the speed of Android versions slowing down.
Re:Why do you think.. (Score:4, Informative)
2.2 to 2.3 is far more than a "minor revision". It is a new major version considering all the system changes, UI changes, API additions and updates, etc.
Re:Why do you think.. (Score:4, Informative)
2.2 to 2.3 is far more than a "minor revision". It is a new major version considering all the system changes, UI changes, API additions and updates, etc.
Not really. There are changes but Android is remarkably good at keeping newer version backwards compatible. I've been professionally developing for Android for 2 years and I can remember perhaps a couple of times I've needed special code to deal with different versions.
The real problem with fragmentation is different hardware device implementations (and bugs), and different hardware speeds. There aren't easy ways to work out what class of device you're instlaled on, and lowest-common-denominator programming slips in.
People focus on OS versions and I have no idea why, I suspect they're not actually Android developers.
Re: (Score:3)
You do understand that 3.x was a tablet-only release, right?
Re:Why do you think.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh wait...
Oh Wait two; the re-waitening (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes. Thats why Apple release Siri for older phones. Its because they dont want you to buy the latest iProduct.
No, that's because Siri is beta and they want to tune the thing with a reasonable amount of load before they push it out to all iOS5 owners.
I'm sure there's some degree of marketing behind the choice as well, but the fact is that it's a technically sound choice with a good reason behind it as long as Siri eventually makes it to all iOS5 owners.
I expect we'll see that mid-year, though it may not support the 3GS (that may lack the CPU to handle the audio encoding fast enough to get it to the server in a reasonable time).
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. Thats why Apple release Siri for older phones. Its because they dont want you to buy the latest iProduct.
No, that's because Siri is beta and they want to tune the thing with a reasonable amount of load before they push it out to all iOS5 owners.
Nothing says "small beta" like a national advertising campaign extolling the virtues of a phone that "you just talk to"... Or a launch event claiming it was a "Game changer" even though Android phones have had every bit of that technology (minus the self-reading SMS) already rolled into one app. Nope, that doesn't make sense, Apple would only do something with a sound technical basis, in the interest of the customers. I will be waiting with baited breath on the upcoming release of Siri for the iPhone 3GS
Re: (Score:3)
I am willing to give Apple some time to roll out its infrastructure to handle the strain of existing iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 users jumping onto Siri's servers, but past experience with vague promises from Apple tends to lead to vapor (again, I must reference the FaceTime protocol, which was incredibly disappointing to me).
But, I am not willing to accept that the iPhone 3GS cannot handle Siri. There is no voice recognition performed on the iPhone itself, except possibly checking for flat noise (nothing spoke
Re:Why do you think.. (Score:5, Informative)
Siri processing is done server side. There have already been hacks released that let Siri run on older devices, from iPhone 3GS to iPad 1. Apple quickly put an end to that. There is no technical reason why Siri can't run on older devices. Apple chooses not to do it.
Re:Why do you think.. (Score:4, Informative)
Siri was originally available as an app in the app store, on the iPhone 4 and it has since been hacked to install on older phones such as the 3GS. When the iPhone 4S came out, it was announced that the app would be removed from the app store, and even if you had purchased it on your iPhone4, it will no longer work. It is not a hardware limitation at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why do you think.. (Score:4, Informative)
As you know the 3GS is the minimum spec for iOS5. The 3G has half the memory and half the speed of the 3GS. The only reason it doesn't get iOS 5 updates is because it's not capable of running them. It's a 3 and a half year old phone.
That differs from Android, in that phones that are only a few months old don't get Android updates - certainly not promptly, and often not at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why do you think.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why do you think.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The solution is to start freeing cell phones from restrictions, so that people can upgrade the OS themselves.
Spot the geek. Suggest a solution that isn't a suitable solution for 99.9% of the population.
A real solution promptly offers to upgrade a phone's software when a new version comes out. Rather like iOS.
Re:Why do you think.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, the very sentence you quoted specifically states that Steve Jobs pushed for "full control over the OS," so obviously, he was talking about wresting control away from the carriers so that you're not going through a chain of phones all the time to catch up with the new OS. In fact, it's a credit to Apple that they push out updates for older phones; the two-year-old iPhone 3GS is still selling well.
How do you even pronounce "fanboism?"
Re: (Score:3)
The start of the smartphone boom was blackberry, and Palm not Apple. And they also wrestled control away...
Manufacturer: "You will make a huge margin and we run the end user experience"
which Apple changed to
Apple: "We will make a huge margin. You will still do pretty well and we run the end user experience".
Phone Vendors Don't Think Platform (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that phone vendors have not changed their mindset from the pre-smartphone era. Back then, no one cared about OS or version. You got an integrated product and it never changed. Today, it feels like phone makers still think "we put it together and ship it - this idea of later changing or upgrading the software is kind of weird to us."
To them, a phone is complete and unchangeable one it leaves the factory. Alas for their mindset, consumers see phones as customizable, upgradeable devices. If they were $50 each, sure, just replace it, but at $500+ (even if it's stretched over two years), people are making a more significant investment and don't want to be left behind.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
However, Google is just ignoring Android and thinking it works out just fine if they pass the control to phone vendors.
Google thought process: A Cupcake phone displays ads just as well as an ICS, and the phone vendors know more about selling phones than us, right? Who wants to go to all of the trouble of making individual users happy when making just Verizon happy will move 100,000 units at a time.
It's a lot more fun to make million dollar deals with the "adults" that Run The Mobile World, while sniping at the "marketing" and "fanboi-sie" of somebody like Apple or Microsoft for actually attempting to make a relationship wi
Re: (Score:2)
If only they would buy a major phone vendor to lead by example. Somebody like Motorola.
Stick to Nexus (Score:3)
This is why I always recommend sticking to the google controlled nexus series. google has complete control, carriers or the manufacturers themselves can't even lock it. Its the reference platform for apps and to top it all off, updates come quick.
My Nexus one always had timely updates, it still competes with modern day non-nexus phones and iPhone wasn't even a competitor for what Nexus One offered.
Just upgraded to Galaxy Nexus and its is a good phone, real good.
My Bionic updated this morning` (Score:3)
Still Android 2.3.4, just some crappy system Verizon version 5.5.893.XT75.Verizon.en.US
I was so hopeful.
Every phone I've ever had (Score:3)
I was hoping Google would be good about backwards-compatible updates but I am not surprised. Hardware changes so much it seems hard to make the OS compatible across all platforms. I don't get why people are so worked up about it. Your phone does what it does when you were all excited about it a few months ago, what's the big deal?
Re: (Score:3)
Two reasons:
1) Smartphones are defined by what apps they run. If you can't run the current, or at least a recent OS, then chances are you can't run any of the newer apps as well.
2) Apple has no problem doing it. My 2.5 years old iPhone 3GS is running the latest OS.
Re: (Score:3)
My girlfriend has an Android touchscreen something-or-other from a
Re: (Score:3)
not happy (Score:2)
Another iPhone (Score:4, Insightful)
And this is the main reason why my next smartphone will be another iPhone. I have a bit of lock-in because of my existing apps, but that's less than $100, so I would not mind switching to something more free. Currently I'm still on my 2.5 years old iPhone 3GS, for as least as long as it still gets updates and the battery is good.
Stories like this give me very little in Android, Google might lose to Microsoft what it gained the last couple of years very quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
We're just sheep apparently. Easily led from phone to phone.
Re:Another iPhone (Score:4, Insightful)
People are stupid. They compare any android device to iPhone. If you really want an alternative, stick to the Nexus series. I have had Nexus one and just upgraded to Galaxy Nexus. Carriers have no control, they are not even allowed to lock it. Google is in complete control. Don't go with any other Android phone, stick to Nexus.
Except (Score:4, Informative)
Um, Verizon blocked Google Wallet, as they are working on a propriety - and no doubt to be a crap and insecure - competing service.
Re:Another iPhone (Score:5, Interesting)
If you really want an alternative, stick to the Nexus series. I have had Nexus one and just upgraded to Galaxy Nexus.
You mean the Nexus One that received what is likely to be its last update one year and two months after they stopped selling it, and only one year and six months after it was first announced? That is the phone that is already one major version behind the current release?
The Nexus One is the longest-supported Android phone to date (certainly it received better support than the ADP which was the previous Google-branded phone and it stopped getting updates before they even stopped selling it). However, I'd hardly hold it up as an example of long-term commitment. I'll have to see what the Nexus S updates look like a year from today - I won't be holding my breath.
The guy you responded to was talking about updates 2.5 years after buying the phone. No android phone has gotten an official update 2.5 years after the phone was even publicly announced, let alone discontinued.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know... the lousy Apple III bug with the chips popping out is why I don't buy Apple stuff like the iPhone. I mean, I always judge a buying decision on the worst example within a large class of products, just like you.
Psst... Android isn't a phone, it's an OS available on many products from many companies. Plenty of Android phones are regularly updated and have good hardware. This is about the market of all Android phones, and as you tend to buy *one* phone, rather than the entire market, it doesn
Impacting my purchasing decisions (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm replacing my Droid Incredible next month, and this very issue is steering me towards an iPhone 4S even though I'm generally happy with other aspects of Android.
If I'm locked into a contract for 2 years for a phone, I don't think it's incredibly unreasonable to expect updates (especially ones that relate to security, stability, or performance) for at least 18 months.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps because they didn't support the Nexus One for 18 months, so what makes anybody think the Galaxy Nexus will fare better?
Re: (Score:3)
I get what you're saying. I just find it ironic that you'd be downgrading to an iPhone all because you're not getting all the latest upgrades/updates on Android.
You remind me of someone who was complaining about not getting Android 2.3.x when he already was on 2.2.x and Android 2.3 wasn't going to offer him any feature that he was actually going to use, and yet, he was still upset that his phone wasn't getting that mystical 2.3 update for some reason.
also dead: the IBM PC (Score:5, Funny)
i mean, there are just so many clones! who knows what bus you use, is it ISA? EISA? PCI? what kind of memory does it use, EMS or XMS? which version of DOS do you want, 4 or 5? what about Windows -- windows 3 or WFW?
there are just too many choices, too many options. the X86 based PC platform is dead. and so is the x86 processor.
this is 1986 for crying out loud. people want stuff that is easy to use. not junk that you have to fiddle around with.
Re: (Score:2)
The point has to do with broken promises of OS updates not hardware variation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, for that you have to look to Microsoft, who originally promised to run NT on x86, Alpha, MIPS, and PowerPC. :-)
Re: (Score:3)
Funny. And those sorts of problems were a bit later then 1986. As an aside, that's more like 1990. 1986 the issue was things like BIOS incompatibility.
can i hire you as my historical consultant (Score:3)
jsut for mentioning VLB i think you should get a $500 christmas present
Pulled in too many directions (Score:3)
To be clear: I am *NOT* an Apple fan. In fact, I won't own an iThing... well I have a Mac mini collecting dust but that's all.
Apple CONTROLS its phones. From the beginning, it used its exclusivity with AT&T as a means to assure that AT&T would let them (mostly) have their way with the user experience of the device. And since the variety of the devices are very limited, making updates to the OS of the device is a bit more simple and is user controlled through iTunes. (Can iThings even get OTA updates?)
Android manufacturers and the carriers are otherwise DOING IT WRONG. Between the two, they each blame the other for delays and these delays cause frustration for the users but also end up as additional new sales of new devices which is seemingly the only way to get "updates" these days if at all.
So why do the makers want to delay?
1. take developer time away from "new" things
2. encourage the sale of new devices
So why do carriers want to delay?
1. they want to keep shopping for new and creative ways to resell their customers by adding new bloatware and spying apps
2. encourage the sale of new devices and extended subscriber commitments
Of course they won't admit to any of these reasons but they should be obvious to anyone paying attention.
Re:not surprising. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They already started, and it didn't change much.
Re:Google is malnourishing it's baby. (Score:5, Insightful)
This has little to do with Google, the exception being for hand sets that Google made themselves. Would you blame MS if HP didn't release Win7 drivers for old printers for example?
Re: (Score:3)
Would you blame MS if HP didn't release Win7 drivers for old printers for example?
If you want to compare this situation to Microsoft, then yes, Microsoft actually mandates that carriers update their WP7 phones.
Re: (Score:3)
> This has little to do with Google, the exception being for hand sets that Google made themselves. Would you blame MS if HP didn't release Win7 drivers for old printers for example?
That's a *great* question. I was in that situation -- upgraded recently to Win7 and found that my perfectly functional HP scanner wouldn't work at all, ever, on Win7. As a geek, I'm sure there are perfectly good reasons why XP drivers won't work on 7, but as a user it's beyond irritating.
But just on the off chance it's HP's
Re: (Score:3)
Can someone tell me if any Android-based phone of that age is still supported by any vendor?
There are none. Most receive their last update before they're even done selling them. The Nexus One was the record holder until it got its last update on Sep 24th of this year - 1.5 years after the original announcement date. If somebody knows of a phone supported longer I'm all ears, but so far Android's best case is far behind Apple's worst case.
I don't mind rooting my phone, but I don't consider the willingness of phone owners to maintain their own phones a substitute for proper vendor support.
Perhaps
Re: (Score:3)
...and iOS 5.0 supports my two-and-a-half year old iPhone 3GS.
Can someone tell me if any Android-based phone of that age is still supported by any vendor? Rail against Apple all you want, but the fact is that iPhones are supported longer than any Android-based phones. It's not iPhone buyers that are compelled to rush to the store to buy the newest model. It's Android-based phone users that are flavor-of-the-week... because they have no choice.
Do those "updates" perform equally well (Cough, iPhone 3) and are all of the features available (cough, Siri) on all of the platforms? If the answer to either question is no, then what is an upgrade besides a change to the text in the version number and perhaps some alternate windowdressing? The fact is that Apple makes it's customers happy by providing updates but the net effect is shockingly similar to what Android users experience: by and large a phone that does what they want it to do.
There is no subs
Re:Choice (Score:4, Insightful)
an Android phone is almost certainly going to be out of date very quickly and will almost certainly never be upgraded to the latest OS
if you're writing for a general audience, yes. If you're writing for Slashdotters, Cyanogenmod seems like a better recommendation.