Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 24th Dec 2011 13:00 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless "Earlier today, Samsung revealed that it won't update the Galaxy S, its most successful smartphone to date, to the latest version of Android. You might shrug and dismiss that as just more evidence of Android's inherent fragmentation or the need for buyers to beware, but I take grave issue with it. This is a decision based not on technical constraints, as Samsung would have you believe, but on hubris." This. A gazillion million thousand times this. Also: "It's simple: make a large high-end device, a smaller value device, and a QWERTY device. Maybe one or two other specialty form factors, tops. That's it. Update them once a year, and keep the names the same." It would make updating a hell of a lot easier. We don't need the Samsung Galaxy SII Epic 4G Touch Sensation.
Order by: Score:
Nice to see I'm not alone
by phoenix on Sat 24th Dec 2011 13:42 UTC
phoenix
Member since:
2005-07-11

It's nice to see that I'm not alone in thinking the Android phone manufacturers are going way overboard with the bazillion and one different phones released every year.

It would be so nice if they concentrated their efforts on releasing just 2 hardware platforms per year (high-end, low-end), in 2 (maybe 3) formfactors (touchscreen-only, touchscreen + hardware keyboard).

That way, there would only be 4 (maybe 6) phone models to worry about:
1a. high-end, large screen, touscreen-only
1b. high-end, large screen, touchscreen + keyboard
1c. high-end, large screen, other formfactor
2a. lower-end, smaller screen, touchscreen-only
2b. lower-end, smaller screen, touscreen + keyboard
2c. lower-end, smaller screen, other formfactor

Sony Ericsson was looking like they were going this way with the Xperia 2011 phones. The Arc and Play are the same hardware, but one has a slide-out gamepad. The Neo and Pro are the same hardware, but one has a slide-out keyboard. The Mini and Mini Pro are the same hardware, but one has a slide-out keyboard. If they had left it at that, things would have been about perfect and easy to support.

But, then they went and added all the other models and just totally muddied the waters. And now it's going to take forever and a day to get upgrades out to all the variations. Still waiting for 2.3.4+ on my Pro. And 4.0 won't be coming to the Pro until after April (Arc, Neo, Ray get it first).

Reply Score: 6

RE: Nice to see I'm not alone
by tonny on Sun 25th Dec 2011 05:24 UTC in reply to "Nice to see I'm not alone"
tonny Member since:
2011-12-22

Well yes, but it's all back to the consumer; they want the newest and the greatest.

And that's sucks for poweruser, who want device(s) with OS that can be upgraded. Joe and Jane don't care about things like that.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Nice to see I'm not alone
by Laurence on Mon 26th Dec 2011 12:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Nice to see I'm not alone"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Well yes, but it's all back to the consumer; they want the newest and the greatest.

And that's sucks for poweruser, who want device(s) with OS that can be upgraded. Joe and Jane don't care about things like that.

Clearly it's not the consumers fault though, if Apple have managed to attract more customers with 1 phone a year than Sony have with > 6 phones a year, then you have to ask yourself if it really pays to flood the market.

I think this is the manufacturers fault because they're constantly trying to hedge their bets rather than concentrating on a limited but successful range.

Edited 2011-12-26 12:41 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Nice to see I'm not alone
by Laurence on Wed 28th Dec 2011 20:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Nice to see I'm not alone"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

I've been modded down so clearly someone disagrees with me, but the coward hasn't left a comment.

Could someone explain to me what it was about my comment that is wrong. If I've misjudged the situation then I'd love to understand where any why ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Nice to see I'm not alone
by testman on Thu 29th Dec 2011 11:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Nice to see I'm not alone"
testman Member since:
2007-10-15

I've been modded down so clearly someone disagrees with me, but the coward hasn't left a comment.

Could someone explain to me what it was about my comment that is wrong. If I've misjudged the situation then I'd love to understand where any why ;)

The moderation system is useless and only serves to ensure mob-rule is enforced in the comments section. For what it's worth, I attempted to mod you up but I can no longer do so (and yet, I can still reply).

If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say the following ticked someone off:

Clearly it's not the consumers fault though, if Apple have managed to attract more customers with 1 phone a year than Sony have with > 6 phones a year, then you have to ask yourself if it really pays to flood the market.

Remember, Apple is never right. ;-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Nice to see I'm not alone
by zima on Sat 31st Dec 2011 18:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Nice to see I'm not alone"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

I've been modded down so clearly someone disagrees with me, but the coward hasn't left a comment.

Could someone explain to me what it was about my comment that is wrong. If I've misjudged the situation then I'd love to understand where any why ;)

Wouldn't that make upmodes without comments just as useless?

Anyway, maybe that's about the bit quoted by the other poster - especially since, really, to what he and your quote allude to ...is not quite correct, presents things in a way which assumes quite narrow perspective / misses larger picture.

There's more than SE - Nokia, Samsung, LG ...you know, the actual heavyweights (and ZTE or Huawei are poised to become ones, have really explosive growth - but you probably even hardly heard about their handsets)
Sure, Apple sold more than many (not all*) single models of other makers (*which supposedly didn't help them much?), but that ignores how other makers sell much more overall (and how Apple pushes the same models on the masses for much longer - so, say, the length of support from the end of mass sales isn't that remarkable) ...really, how they are the force propelling the mobile market forward, monumentally influencing the world (on which Apple tried to catch a free ride - in the end, paying close to a billion to Nokia and related issues seem not settled with others)
There are 5+ billion mobile subscribers. Even assuming all iPhones ever made are still in use ...that's 2 to 3%.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Nice to see I'm not alone
by Digsbo on Mon 26th Dec 2011 16:26 UTC in reply to "Nice to see I'm not alone"
Digsbo Member since:
2011-10-04

I hadn't thought of it this way before, but you're dead-on right. It wasn't until recently that some of the big auto manufacturers in the USA stopped competing with themselves, offering multiple brands and trim levels of the same car (think Plymouth, Oldsmobile, etc.). Maybe when the phone market slows down (as the auto market did), we'll see consolidation. But as long as people are buying, the manufacturers will use subsidized pricing to move a mess of slightly differentiated products.

Reply Score: 1

It's obvious why Android is fragmenting
by cmost on Sat 24th Dec 2011 14:13 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

When Android devices first started hitting the mainstream, I vowed never to purchase any model accept the "pure" Nexus phones. These are the only ones, as far as I can tell, with unadulterated versions of Android (which by the way is all anyone needs.) The rest of them are loaded to the gills with bloatware and custom skins. Why? It's a matter of control on the part of the carriers. It's clear to me why the carriers are reluctant to update their phones. Why update an older phone when you can get a gullible consumer to buy a shiny new phone? This is really the fault of consumers who are only too willing to exclaim "No update? Oh, okey dokey, show me a model with the latest version..." Then they whip out a credit card and goodbye old phone, hello new model.

As the proud owner of a now abandoned HTC Nexus One, I have always anticipated and expected the very latest and greatest version of Android for my device. I have been receiving the latest versions of Android OTA within weeks (usually) of their release by Google. Sadly, this time, Google has decided that my Nexus One isn't quite capable of running ICS. This in spite of numerous videos exhibiting early builds of ICS running just fine on the N1. So, for the very first time, I am anxiously awaiting the release of CyanogenMod 9 which will be based on Android 4 ICS and will happily bring the latest Android to anyone willing to spend a few moments rooting their device. I intend to hang onto my beloved Nexus One and enjoy Android 4 ICS in full rooted glory. It's my device and I'll decide if it's capable of running Android 4.0 or not.

Edited 2011-12-24 14:20 UTC

Reply Score: 4

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

When Android devices first started hitting the mainstream, I vowed never to purchase any model accept the "pure" Nexus phones.


This. I can sum up the Android phone buying advice like this: Either get the one that says 'Nexus' on it, or buy an iPhone, or Windows phone. Now, that wasn't so complicated, was it?

Reply Score: 2

nzgreen Member since:
2008-01-07

And if I want an Android device with more than 16GB of storage?

Edited 2011-12-24 20:14 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Earl C Pottinger Member since:
2008-07-12

Can phones like this be opened and have the storage chip changed? A friend of my was planning to do this with his tablet, but I don't know if phone storage is soldered in or plugged in. And if it is soldered, if the larger storage chips have the same pin-outs.

Why can't phones come with a SD-Card or mini-SD-card port?

Edited 2011-12-24 21:58 UTC

Reply Score: 1

righard Member since:
2007-12-26

All my phones come with a mini-SD-card port, even my dumbphone (Nokia 6500S)

Reply Score: 3

present_arms Member since:
2005-07-09

Is mini-sd a new format? Mines micro-sd. merry christmas to all

Reply Score: 1

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

And if I want an Android device with more than 16GB of storage?


The newest Nexus phone has 32 ;)

Reply Score: 2

wargum Member since:
2006-12-15

Not true for the european version, which only has 16 gb...

Reply Score: 2

tonny Member since:
2011-12-22

Buy the not-too-priced android phone, and buy a 16gb micro-sd card.

Edited 2011-12-25 05:36 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

This. I can sum up

I immediately know if a post is worth reading if it starts with "This."

Reply Score: 3

dragos.pop Member since:
2010-01-08


This. I can sum up the Android phone buying advice like this: Either get the one that says 'Nexus' on it, or buy an iPhone, or Windows phone. Now, that wasn't so complicated, was it?


Most Windows phones will hit the same problem. Unless microsoft will:
1) Have a small number of conponents suported, so that they will provide the OTA update with all drivers
or:
2) Drivers will be forward compatible, so a new Windows version will not influence OEMs.

Reply Score: 1

AnythingButVista Member since:
2008-08-27

"When Android devices first started hitting the mainstream, I vowed never to purchase any model accept the "pure" Nexus phones.


This. I can sum up the Android phone buying advice like this: Either get the one that says 'Nexus' on it, or buy an iPhone, or Windows phone. Now, that wasn't so complicated, was it?
"
What if I want a phone with a hardware keyboard? I'm telling you, if Apple comes with an iSlide (phone with a sliding QWERTY), Android would be dead for all I care. Android is destined to become the featurephone-replacement OS, the one for users who don't care about software updates.

Reply Score: 1

PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

Android is destined to become the featurephone-replacement OS

I realize that you are an extreme Apple fan, but even you must surely understand that this statement is completely insane, considering that Android is kicking iOS's ass in the smartphone market?

Reply Score: 2

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

"Android is destined to become the featurephone-replacement OS

I realize that you are an extreme Apple fan, but even you must surely understand that this statement is completely insane, considering that Android is kicking iOS's ass in the smartphone market?
"

I'm not an Apple fan myself, but I'm finding it hard to disagree. Symbian was once the dominant smartphone os, and look what happened to it. The line between smartphone and feature phone is blurring by the day. It wouldn't surprise me one bit to see Android on feature phones in the near future. I don't believe this would exclude it from smartphones, however if the fragmentation continues, I can see it losing its dominant position if for no other reason than that app devs will get sick of all the model-specific quirks. I generally disagree with Apple's policies, but imho, they did do one thing right: not allowing carriers to fuck with the os image. iOS is iOS, no matter where you get your phone. Google, I think, needs to start exercising a bit more control. They can't do so directly, of course, but they can block any google apps from being used and, let's face it, that would make the difference for most customers regardless of whether they understand the technical implications. Show a customer a phone that can use the Android market vs one that can't, and see which one they go for.
I'm an android user myself. I like the flexibility I get with it. If this situation continues though, I might end up going back to iOS anyway. I'm sick of having to manually load a new rom on my Nexus One because it's been decided (by Google, no less, so they're sure not perfect) that they'd rather try and make people buy new phones rather than give me ICS. The sad bit is that the Nexus One isn't as old as the iPhone 3GS, and look at that, the 3GS is still getting updated (though I wouldn't be surprised if iOS 5 was the last update it gets). I wouldn't typically say this, but Google'd better take a hard look at what Apple's doing here and would do well to follow their lead... if Apple hasn't patented the process of timely updating, of course.

Reply Score: 1

_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

The sad bit is that the Nexus One isn't as old as the iPhone 3GS, and look at that, the 3GS is still getting updated (though I wouldn't be surprised if iOS 5 was the last update it gets).


True, it is getting updated, but with features from the new updates getting cut all over the place. Not only that each successive update makes the phone creak more and more...

Reply Score: 2

Panajev Member since:
2008-01-09

Except that it is not true, the 3GS works with iOS 5 just fine.

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, only without all the cherished features... and with the free Siri removed from the Appstore, so it can be "introduced" with the launching $S.

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Symbian was once the dominant smartphone os, and look what happened to it.

Yeah, look what happened to it... http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_os-ww-monthly-200812-201112 (generally, I suspect its future might be much less clear than Elop makes it out to be)

The line between smartphone and feature phone is blurring by the day. It wouldn't surprise me one bit to see Android on feature phones in the near future. I don't believe this would exclude it from smartphones, however if the fragmentation continues, I can see it losing its dominant position if for no other reason than that app devs will get sick of all the model-specific quirks.

Most of the world will just ignore such confused "feature phone" distinctions ...even if some insist on using it for what is just "inexpensive smartphone".
It's like making distinction on the basis of what "workstation" used to mean - but it doesn't make sense any more, any cheap laptop can do virtually "everything".

And dev fragmentation... they just won't target model-specific quirks, the situation with the SDK will get more tidied up if anything - that is what's actually happening despite the variety of handsets exploding.

I generally disagree with Apple's policies, but imho, they did do one thing right: not allowing carriers to fuck with the os image. iOS is iOS, no matter where you get your phone.

OTOH that's what greatly helped the adoption of Android...
(and as for iOS... just buy a device from some countries and see how Facetime "works", or remember how readily Apple implements SIM or data transmission locks)

The sad bit is that the Nexus One isn't as old as the iPhone 3GS, and look at that, the 3GS is still getting updated (though I wouldn't be surprised if iOS 5 was the last update it gets).

But remember the 3GS is still being actively promoted / it will be likely dropped much sooner counting from the end of notable sales.

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

I can sum up the Android phone buying advice like this: Either get the one that says 'Nexus' on it, or buy an iPhone, or Windows phone. Now, that wasn't so complicated, was it?

I don't know, that mostly brings up: will you ever stop promoting Nexus phones ad nauseam?

Really, that's way too simplistic (even fallacious and misrepresenting what the mobile market is), they aren't anywhere near the optimal choice for many. "Superiority" of Nexus has a hefty price tag (iOS or Win devices, similarly) - for vast majority of people it's most likely better to get ~3x less expensive handset and replace it maybe only slightly sooner than a Nexus would dictate (anyway, I suspect that an average Nexus owner is among the "often upgrading" half)

Edited 2011-12-31 19:06 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Steve Jobs wrote a book
by SHatfield on Sat 24th Dec 2011 14:15 UTC
SHatfield
Member since:
2006-12-23

Perhaps Samsung should read it?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Steve Jobs wrote a book
by Johann Chua on Sat 24th Dec 2011 15:21 UTC in reply to "Steve Jobs wrote a book"
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

There's been several books about Steve Jobs, but AFAIK Jobs himself never wrote a book.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Steve Jobs wrote a book
by shotsman on Sun 25th Dec 2011 07:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Steve Jobs wrote a book"
shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

Did you get the message that the OP was referring to the 'word of Jobs on keeping it simple stupid?'

Apple are the masters of making a device and selling the hell out of it for 12/18 months. Then they upgrade it.

The likes of Samsung/HTC etc do exactly the opposite and release a plethora of models without a great deal of difference between them. These models seem to only last a few months on the market before they are abandonded. No support. No software upgrades. Nada.

I have an unlocked, no carrier bloat HTC phone. Even this is still full of crapware that can't be removed without rooting it. The device is 9 months old. Are HTC going to give me an update to ICS? are they heck. Situations like this are nearly enough to drive me back to Apple.

Yeah, I could root the phone and load a cyanogen release. But frankly, I can't be bothered. I have better things to do with my time.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Steve Jobs wrote a book
by Johann Chua on Sun 25th Dec 2011 08:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Steve Jobs wrote a book"
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

My Samsung Galaxy Ace shipped with Froyo and got an official upgrade to Gingerbread. I already know it's not on the list for an ICS upgrade, but hey, it's a mid-range Android phone.

I guess the OP was referring to Walter Isaacson's Steve Jobs. Just got it for Christmas from my sister.

Reply Score: 2

Kinda like Windows now...
by gan17 on Sat 24th Dec 2011 14:26 UTC
gan17
Member since:
2008-06-03

I had big hopes for Android, but over the last couple of years it's kinda become what Windows is on laptops, but worse. On laptops you get a zillion OEMs including their AV-free-trials, Acer media centers, Toshiba Power Managers, HP crotch scratcher...etc, but at least they still have the Windows UI (at least I think so, not a WIndows user here) on all Android phones bar Nexus branded ones, every Tosh, Dell and Sammy is giving us bastardized botox UI.

Also, what's up with a Android phones needing dual or quad core processors?!! ... it's a freakin cellphone, ffs!!... it's not like any sane person is going to run 3D studio on it. Heck, I even see some lag on a dual core Galaxy Nexus!!

Apple's not much better, but at least their customers don't have to put up this OEM botox nonsense.

Someone make me a clamshell CLI phone, with a cli browser, ncmpcpp + mpd for music players, mplayer for movies, and some other lightweight console clients like a keypad optimized version of Mcabber or something for IM stuff... and maybe Mutt for e-mails. That's all we need. The day people started thinking they needed an "app ecosystem" to go about their daily lives is teh day mobile computing f*cked itself in the face.

Yes, I realize there's bothing relevant to the topic threadf in my post. Just wanted to share the X'mas spirit.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Kinda like Windows now...
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 24th Dec 2011 14:30 UTC in reply to "Kinda like Windows now..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Someone make me a clamshell CLI phone, with a cli browser, ncmpcpp + mpd for music players, mplayer for movies, and some other lightweight console clients like a keypad optimized version of Mcabber or something for IM stuff... and maybe Mutt for e-mails. That's all we need. The day people started thinking they needed an "app ecosystem" to go about their daily lives is teh day mobile computing f*cked itself in the face.


N900.

Reply Score: 5

Speaking of Nokia
by gan17 on Sat 24th Dec 2011 14:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Kinda like Windows now..."
gan17 Member since:
2008-06-03

Oh yeah...

Speaking of Nokia (R.I.P), I wonder wif there's any progress on the remnants of Meego, specifically the Mer project: http://merproject.org/

I currently own an N9. Quite amazing what the Meego team achieved with a late 2009 spec processor, even if it wasn't that smooth until 2 updates later (plus some rooting and apt-get magic in between).

Would be good if we could install Mer on future windows phones, since I'm guessing some people working on the project are still Nokia employees and have access to the hardware.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Speaking of Nokia
by leech on Sat 24th Dec 2011 16:47 UTC in reply to "Speaking of Nokia"
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

I love my N900. I had the N9 for awhile and it just didn't seem anywhere near as complete as my N900 did when it first came out. By this I mean on my N900, out of the box, it supported all of the IM protocols. N9 seemed to have some of them in place, and even icons for all of them. But it took the crafty hackers to port over libpurple and some scripts to set up telepathy with support for them all.

I still like my N900 better. The only thing I think it's missing is a Gorilla Glass screen, more RAM and more Processing power. Then it'd be the ultimate gadget. The N9 is really fast though, it just needed the software to back that up.

Makes one wonder how Android screwed the pooch so much, when MeeGo Harmtattan can run on half the hardware, but be twice as fast and 10 times better at multitasking. That whole SNAFU of Nokia+Microsoft deal really was horrible for consumers. Especially now that Intel has themselves bailed on MeeGo. It had such potential.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Speaking of Nokia
by Not2Sure on Sat 24th Dec 2011 18:57 UTC in reply to "Speaking of Nokia"
Not2Sure Member since:
2009-12-07

The nemo mobile project meets every Tuesday at 11:00 UTC, 13:00 EEST, on @freenode, #mer-meeting

Reply Score: 1

Regulate carrier behavior
by saso on Sat 24th Dec 2011 14:32 UTC
saso
Member since:
2007-04-18

The real culprit here is, me thinks, the carriers - they artificially position themselves as the primary channel by which customers get a handset. They do so by way of subsidies, so the customer has little incentive to get an open phone (e.g. Nexus) versus a carrier-branded subsidized version of the same thing + the crapware on it. In my country, sure you can buy a phone over the counter, but the carrier won't give you any discount on the contract if you choose to get a phone somewhere else - you still pay, pretty much, the same. The only difference is that perhaps the minimum contract term will be shortened (e.g. min. 2 months, vs. 24 months) - not much of an advantage, considering that switching carriers is painful, even with number portability.

We need a market regulation body to step in here and either:
a) forbid phone subsidies, or
b) mandate that carriers must clearly declare the cost of the phone in the contract as a separate item and allow for consumers to demand removal of that fee, should they obtain a phone somewhere else.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Regulate carrier behavior
by Brendan on Sat 24th Dec 2011 15:43 UTC in reply to "Regulate carrier behavior"
Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

The real culprit here is, me thinks, the carriers


I think the culprit is consumers. Any moron willing to bend over backwards to spend several hundred $$ on a disposable plastic box deserves to be taken advantage of while they're bending over.

- Brendan

Reply Score: 8

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Yes, because you surely don't have hobby or a guilty pleasure you spend more money on than a normal person would do.

I hope you can hear me way up that high horse of yours.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Regulate carrier behavior
by saso on Sat 24th Dec 2011 16:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Regulate carrier behavior"
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

I think the culprit is consumers. Any moron willing to bend over backwards to spend several hundred $$ on a disposable plastic box deserves to be taken advantage of while they're bending over.

Can you please substantiate your claim that the blame lies with consumers, rather than large multi-national carrier corporations, with anything more than (imho) ad-hominem attacks on a potentially large and diverse group of people?
Also, I disagree with your implied labeling of modern smartphones as a "disposable plastic box". They've become powerful portable general-purpose computers in an appealing form-factor. Surely you too must see the potential benefits brings to consumers, and thus understand the resulting desire for them on the market.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Regulate carrier behavior
by WorknMan on Sat 24th Dec 2011 17:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Regulate carrier behavior"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Can you please substantiate your claim that the blame lies with consumers, rather than large multi-national carrier corporations, with anything more than (imho) ad-hominem attacks on a potentially large and diverse group of people?


Do large multi-national carrier corporations point a gun to peoples' heads and force them to buy their phones? No? Then why is it anyone else's fault but the consumer? That's the problem these days... it's easier to blame government and large corporations for all of your bad decisions, instead of taking some f**king responsibility for your actions. Don't want to pay hundreds of dollars for an overpriced phone plan? Then don't buy one. The shit ain't air... you don't have to have it.

Note: Don't misunderstand me... I have a smartphone too, but I also get a lot of use out of it beyond mere entertainment, so for me, it is worth the price I pay for it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Regulate carrier behavior
by saso on Sat 24th Dec 2011 18:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Regulate carrier behavior"
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

Do large multi-national carrier corporations point a gun to peoples' heads and force them to buy their phones? No?

This is a terribly oversimplified outlook on things and, to round it off, I believe an attempt at a strawman argument from you. Sure they don't force you into purchasing a phone at gunpoint - I never said that. What they do force you into is this: "either get a phone from us (price in contract), or spend an extra 500EUR on a phone you want (which is certainly not worth the extra money)."

Then why is it anyone else's fault but the consumer?

Because the balance of power is strongly to the carriers' benefit. There are only three carriers in my country, two major ones and one small one (with a shitty network). Don't like their services? Well, sure, you may use the landline, if you like. They can do without one customer, but can you do without any mobile phone? In today's world? I think you now understand, that the situation is a bit more complicated.

That's the problem these days... it's easier to blame government and large corporations for all of your bad decisions, instead of taking some f**king responsibility for your actions.

Ouch, sounds like a hit a bit of a republican nerve here...

Don't want to pay hundreds of dollars for an overpriced phone plan? Then don't buy one. The shit ain't air... you don't have to have it.

Ah, the good old "it's either my way or the highway" excuse - the ditch-it resolution to a problem. I can play that game too: "Don't like your government's policies? Vote with your feet and leave! That'll teach them." Or: "Gas prices too high for you? Take the bus! I'm sure public transport will improve just because of you any moment now."

Note: Don't misunderstand me... I have a smartphone too, but I also get a lot of use out of it beyond mere entertainment, so for me, it is worth the price I pay for it.

Me too, but who gives you the right to decide that your "work" usage is more important that those who use it for mere entertainment?

edit: grammer fial

Edited 2011-12-24 18:29 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Regulate carrier behavior
by Neolander on Sun 25th Dec 2011 00:03 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Regulate carrier behavior"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

This is a terribly oversimplified outlook on things and, to round it off, I believe an attempt at a strawman argument from you. Sure they don't force you into purchasing a phone at gunpoint - I never said that. What they do force you into is this: "either get a phone from us (price in contract), or spend an extra 500EUR on a phone you want (which is certainly not worth the extra money)."

Well, myself I choose not to buy any phone that I can't afford myself.

1/It's more healthy than those phones which are affortable together with expensive 12- and 24-month phone contracts, which is basically the same as subscribing to a bank credit for a mere phone, and
2/Carrier customization is really something I don't want on my phone. Ever. And iProducts are not for me.

I can understand why other people would choose otherwise though. Shiny high-end tech is shiny ;)

Edited 2011-12-25 00:06 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Regulate carrier behavior
by saso on Sun 25th Dec 2011 09:57 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Regulate carrier behavior"
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

Well, myself I choose not to buy any phone that I can't afford myself.

Me neither. The question here isn't about whether you can or can't afford a high-end phone, though. The question is about whether you would want to spend an extra X-hundred bucks just on the fact that you get the non-carrier branded crapware-laden equivalent of that which you would have already paid for using your contract. Make no mistake, "subsidized" simply means that you leased the phone from the carrier, not that they gave it to you - I should know, I work for one.

1/It's more healthy than those phones which are affortable together with expensive 12- and 24-month phone contracts, which is basically the same as subscribing to a bank credit for a mere phone, and
2/Carrier customization is really something I don't want on my phone. Ever. And iProducts are not for me.

Yes, exactly! Thus, I want to have the possibility to tell my carrier to shove their "subsidized" handsets, and instead go give that money to somebody who would sell me the phone I want - ATM, I effectively can't!

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Regulate carrier behavior
by Neolander on Tue 27th Dec 2011 23:07 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Regulate carrier behavior"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Me neither. The question here isn't about whether you can or can't afford a high-end phone, though. The question is about whether you would want to spend an extra X-hundred bucks just on the fact that you get the non-carrier branded crapware-laden equivalent of that which you would have already paid for using your contract.

Difficult question. I would argue that strong phone price reductions only occur for contracts where you pay a big lot of money, so if you don't need those contracts, you don't get such big phone price reductions.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm a bit of a heavy writer, so my ideal phone plan would be 15 min + unlimited texts. In terms of current phone plan pricings in France, this should not cost more than €7-10. The only problem is that this kind of plan does not exist to date.

Second thing about subsidized phone contracts is that they force you to stay with a given operator for a very long time. Nowadays, more and more operators allow you to leave whenever you want on some of their plans, which is a choice worth considering IMO.

Yes, exactly! Thus, I want to have the possibility to tell my carrier to shove their "subsidized" handsets, and instead go give that money to somebody who would sell me the phone I want - ATM, I effectively can't!

There is a new french cellphone operator who effectively announced that it aimed at achieving that : bringing a bit of honesty in phone plan pricing by explicitly picturing phone subsidizing as a separate credit contract. I hope they will succeed at this.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Regulate carrier behavior
by WorknMan on Sun 25th Dec 2011 03:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Regulate carrier behavior"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

They can do without one customer, but can you do without any mobile phone? In today's world? I think you now understand, that the situation is a bit more complicated.


There are millions of people in the world without a mobile phone. As far as I know, none of them have keeled over and died.

Ouch, sounds like a hit a bit of a republican nerve here...


LOL, republican? Surely you jest.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Regulate carrier behavior
by saso on Sun 25th Dec 2011 10:01 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Regulate carrier behavior"
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

There are millions of people in the world without a mobile phone. As far as I know, none of them have keeled over and died.

LOL, republican? Surely you jest.

Now you are just plain trolling - sorry, I won't play along. Your constant insistence on using fallacies, misrepresentations and straw-man arguments clearly shows that you are not interested in having a meaningful discussion.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Regulate carrier behavior
by WorknMan on Sun 25th Dec 2011 20:29 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Regulate carrier behavior"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Now you are just plain trolling - sorry, I won't play along. Your constant insistence on using fallacies, misrepresentations and straw-man arguments clearly shows that you are not interested in having a meaningful discussion.


Look, it's really simple. The reason why these companies charge so much is because consumers are willing to pay the price; not because they NEED a cell phone, but because they WANT one. Hence, there's noone else to blame but us.

If we were talking about food or water, then yeah... you would have a point, because people have to have these things, and would have no choice but to pay the asking price if two or three companies controlled access to them. But not when we're talking about a damn cell phone.

If we were to all just say, 'Screw it... we're not paying these prices for cell phones', then the prices would come down, or these companies would go out of business. That is an undeniable FACT, and is the way the market is supposed to work. But somewhere along the way, too many people started thinking that these greedy corporations are like schoolyard bullies that we need to government to fight, because we're too f**king scared to stand up to them.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Regulate carrier behavior
by David on Sat 24th Dec 2011 18:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Regulate carrier behavior"
David Member since:
1997-10-01

Re: "plastic boxes,"
That's some good trolling there, sir. Sure come to a forum for computing enthusiasts and belittle the pinnacle of modern consumer computing tech.

Now that you've succeeded in getting people riled up, why don't you head on over to gardening forums and tell people that it's easier to just buy your vegetables from the grocery store.

Oh, and head on over to mountaineering forums and remind people that there's nothing at the tops of mountains but rocks, so why bother?

What, you say? Because it would just make you look like an idiot with too much time on his hands? Exactly.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Regulate carrier behavior
by kaiwai on Mon 26th Dec 2011 01:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Regulate carrier behavior"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I think the culprit is consumers. Any moron willing to bend over backwards to spend several hundred $$ on a disposable plastic box deserves to be taken advantage of while they're bending over.


Spending money isn't the problem - idiots who buy their phones on contract and only realise after the contract has finished how much they've been shafted, they're the real problem. In all due respect, this is an 'only in America' moment where the dumb public spend $199 for a phone and pay for that phone ten times over by being bound into a contract because they think they're getting a 'great deal' based on a low entry price.

Edited 2011-12-26 01:10 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Comment by Pana4
by Pana4 on Sat 24th Dec 2011 16:02 UTC
Pana4
Member since:
2010-09-17

Even though I've been using Samsung phones for the past 10 years this is very disappointing. I always reserve the right to dump a brand the second they become a bad actor. If Samsung thinks it's fine to stop supporting a phone well before it's normal life-cycle is up, then they don't make products I want.
I'm sure another brand will step in to fill their spot.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by Pana4
by nzgreen on Sat 24th Dec 2011 20:27 UTC in reply to "Comment by Pana4"
nzgreen Member since:
2008-01-07

The reason I bought the original Galaxy S was because of the hardware. For me it was the most compelling Android device at the time of purchase.

I think that because the Nexus S is so similar I'll always be able to run the same version of Android that it does.

I realise that installing custom ROMs isn't for everyone. But as long as Samsung keeps bringing out devices with unlocked bootloaders, and the Android dev community keeps porting the latest and greatest to it I'll keep buying them.

Reply Score: 2

silly advice
by unclefester on Sat 24th Dec 2011 23:07 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

Apple is almost certainly the only large company in the world that succeeds by limiting choice. This method only works because Apple has all the characteristics of a religious cult. Cults work by keeping the message simple and consistent and stifling dissent.

Virtually every other a major successful brand, apart from Apple, achieves success by offering as much choice as possible. Ralph Lauren makes dozens of different polo shirts colours and styles. BMW, Lexus and Mercedes offer a huge number of possible combinations of body, engine suspension, paint colour, interior trim etc.

Android is successful mainly because it offers so much choice. Most people want choice and the ability to customise. That is why you can buy thousands of different phone cases.

Cults nearly always die out shortly after their guru dies. Apple will not be an exception.

Reply Score: 5

RE: silly advice
by MOS6510 on Sun 25th Dec 2011 00:04 UTC in reply to "silly advice"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

You do sound a bit insane.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: silly advice
by unclefester on Sun 25th Dec 2011 00:20 UTC in reply to "RE: silly advice"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

You do sound a bit insane.


Why because I support a proven business strategy (a highly diversified range of products) used by 99.99% of the most successful large companies in history?

Do you really think that any sane company should adopt the Apple model business which has already failed spectacularly in the past?

I'm pretty sure Samsung will still be around in 100 years. Apple will be lucky to survive another 10 years.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: silly advice
by RawMustard on Sun 25th Dec 2011 04:10 UTC in reply to "RE: silly advice"
RawMustard Member since:
2005-10-10

Why? He's only quoting history and history has an uncanny ability of repeating itself. All indicators thus far point to this happening.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: silly advice
by MOS6510 on Sun 25th Dec 2011 19:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: silly advice"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

My comment was aimed at his cult claims. And that coupled with his recent very strange comments.

Besides, Apple nearly went bust and even tried to sell itself with no buyers not so long ago. In that short period they went from zombie to King Kong so it's a bit odd to say that their business strategy is a bad one.

Sure, they won't stay number one forever, but right now a lot of companies would like to swap places.

Their strategy is a risky one and I think it can only work if it is executed beyond very well and they needed to get beyond a certain threshold which the did. They now have the brand name and the money to have their new products noticed. A lot of cool stuff doesn't get noticed, because it's not from Apple or another big name.

Only because Apple had a genius, Steve, they could manage this enormous growth, but in the long run I think Steve would have been a bad thing. But he got Apple in the lead, very far in the lead, and now a team of more down to earth professionals can take over.

Furthermore I don't think Apple limits choice, it offers only the choices that matter keeping stuff simple and easy to use. Apart from my iPhone I have a company BlackBerry that has many (hidden) options and menus, which I don't use because (a I have no need and (b don't know what most options do.

When you have an Apple product you have an en enormous choice with regards to apps, accessories and services. This matters far more than what the product out of the box can do. A great computer with no software is more useless than a so-so computer with loads of programs.

Reply Score: 1

RE: silly advice
by earksiinni on Sun 25th Dec 2011 10:26 UTC in reply to "silly advice"
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

Apple is almost certainly the only large company in the world that succeeds by limiting choice.

...

Virtually every other a major successful brand, apart from Apple, achieves success by offering as much choice as possible. Ralph Lauren makes dozens of different polo shirts colours and styles. BMW, Lexus and Mercedes offer a huge number of possible combinations of body, engine suspension, paint colour, interior trim etc.


Scotsman's fallacy

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: silly advice
by unclefester on Sun 25th Dec 2011 11:52 UTC in reply to "RE: silly advice"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Scotsman's fallacy


You don't seem to understand the Scotsman Fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

The legendary investor Sir John Templeton once said “This time is different” are among the most costly four words in market history.

Apple has not proven any business rules wrong. It has merely had a 6-8 year period of very rapid growth by choosing an extremely risky short term strategy. This is commonly known as "betting the farm" based on the practice of foolish farmers who risk everything they own on the expectation of making a huge profit.

It is utterly absurd to think that Apple, despite having the largest capitalisation of any corporation is capable of maintaining or even increasing it's current growth rate. This is something that no other corporation in history has ever achieved. Every "Top Dog" corporation in history has had a very short (typically only 1-2 years) stay at the top before having a significant decline in value.

The companies that survive the longest are invariably extremely risk averse. They are typically very heavily diversified or willing to grow slowly. Apple does neither.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: silly advice
by earksiinni on Sun 25th Dec 2011 12:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: silly advice"
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

I'm not qualified to assess Apple's market strategy, but I do know a Scotsman's fallacy when I see one. You've defined "much choice" in such a way that apparently excludes Apple's offerings, which is misleading for at least two reasons:

1. In absolute terms, Apple offers several configurations for its products.
2. In relative terms, you've defined choice in a way that places your own personal values above those of others. Others might not see Polo's different kinds of colors as a matter of choice at all, and in fact they may enjoy Polo for the reason that it is as restrictive (and therefore possibly exclusive) in its cut/tailoring as Apple is in its support for operating systems. Conversely, someone might value the plethora of apps available through Apple's App Store and think that Apple offers them an enormous variety of choices. Choice is all about perception.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: silly advice
by unclefester on Mon 26th Dec 2011 00:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: silly advice"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Choice is all about perception.


Welcome to 1984.

Choice is a purely objective

Maybe you should get a job with the North Korean government as a propaganda advisor.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: silly advice
by brichpmr on Sun 25th Dec 2011 14:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: silly advice"
brichpmr Member since:
2006-04-22

"Scotsman's fallacy


You don't seem to understand the Scotsman Fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

The legendary investor Sir John Templeton once said “This time is different” are among the most costly four words in market history.

Apple has not proven any business rules wrong. It has merely had a 6-8 year period of very rapid growth by choosing an extremely risky short term strategy. This is commonly known as "betting the farm" based on the practice of foolish farmers who risk everything they own on the expectation of making a huge profit.

It is utterly absurd to think that Apple, despite having the largest capitalisation of any corporation is capable of maintaining or even increasing it's current growth rate. This is something that no other corporation in history has ever achieved. Every "Top Dog" corporation in history has had a very short (typically only 1-2 years) stay at the top before having a significant decline in value.

The companies that survive the longest are invariably extremely risk averse. They are typically very heavily diversified or willing to grow slowly. Apple does neither.
"


The intelligence of Apple's business strategy is confirmed by their results..an ecosystem that is coupled with an infrastructure of planning and management on multiple levels that puts most competitors to shame. Keeping in mind that most of their recent buyers are not Apple koolaid drinkers (they run PCs), their strategy seems to be wise. Most buyers are not slaves to specs or numbers on a page. It's more about the experience with the integrated hardware and software, and the support Apple provides....all of which drives positive word-of-mouth buzz...it's a very profitable business strategy, uncluttered with confusing product layers, assorted crapware/bloatware (no rooting required) like some of the competition.

Choice is really powerful, and one of Apple's greatest strengths has been their ability to carve out a differentiated market space and execute.

Edited 2011-12-25 14:25 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE: silly advice
by kaiwai on Mon 26th Dec 2011 01:19 UTC in reply to "silly advice"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple is almost certainly the only large company in the world that succeeds by limiting choice. This method only works because Apple has all the characteristics of a religious cult. Cults work by keeping the message simple and consistent and stifling dissent.

Virtually every other a major successful brand, apart from Apple, achieves success by offering as much choice as possible. Ralph Lauren makes dozens of different polo shirts colours and styles. BMW, Lexus and Mercedes offer a huge number of possible combinations of body, engine suspension, paint colour, interior trim etc.

Android is successful mainly because it offers so much choice. Most people want choice and the ability to customise. That is why you can buy thousands of different phone cases.

Cults nearly always die out shortly after their guru dies. Apple will not be an exception.


Amazing, I'm sitting here and within a few minutes I could think of half a dozen companies that limit choice and are very successful at what they do - simply because you're unable to obtain a Apple product doesn't some how mean that those of us who should be looked down upon as members of a cult. If you want to see a cult then you should go to a Microsoft conference with people running up and down the isle, loud bass pounding music and a CEO thinking he is 'hip and cool' at playing the crowd.

As for limiting choice - there is choice then there is the illusion of choice; there is as much choice in some companies as there was in the Soviet Union when it came to the various products being made. There is a reason why Apple has a small range of products - it is hardly anyones fault here that you're too bloody lazy to read up on the changes Steve Jobs along with is financial advisers did 14 years ago when he came back as the CEO.

Edited 2011-12-26 01:22 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: silly advice
by unclefester on Mon 26th Dec 2011 04:21 UTC in reply to "RE: silly advice"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Go ahead and name these dozen major corporations that succeed by limiting choice.

Resort to name calling "you must be jealous because you can't afford Apple products"

Deny you are in a cult - all cult members do

Ignore the reality. Apple is considered by accounting experts to be an extremely risky investment due to potential litigation, overvalued assets etc,
http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/AccountingRisk.do?tkr=AAPL

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: silly advice
by Tony Swash on Mon 26th Dec 2011 12:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: silly advice"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Go ahead and name these dozen major corporations that succeed by limiting choice.

Resort to name calling "you must be jealous because you can't afford Apple products"

Deny you are in a cult - all cult members do

Ignore the reality. Apple is considered by accounting experts to be an extremely risky investment due to potential litigation, overvalued assets etc,
http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/AccountingRisk.do?tkr=AAPL


ummm - the old 'Apple is doomed' meme

Very ironic it should still being circulated on the eve of what will probably be the most spectacular set of quarterly results Apple have ever produced and following a long string of spectacular quarterly results,

When people talk about Apple taking risks or facing obscurity in the near term they forget just how resilient Apple has been. It's been a leading player in information technology for nearly 40 years. That's a very long time. For almost the whole of that period it has been profitable and for a considerable amount of that time it has been very profitable. For a big chunk of those decades Apple operated and survived in a Microsoft/Windows dominated world. It was pretty much the only major OS platform that survived the onslaught of Windows.

Aaah - you say- but look how they nearly went bust and it was all because they did things the the way the are doing them now. Android versus iOS will be just like Mac versus Windows. Such a perspective, which is quite common amongst techies, confuses two events that happened at the same time, namely Apple nearly going bust and Apple only taking a small proportion of the market share, and think one caused the other. Correlation is not causation. In reality Apple nearly went bust because it was being spectacularly badly run and it's revival after the Next reverse take over showed it could relatively easily make profits on just the Mac business even in a Windows dominated world. And it's Mac business has only got stronger and stronger each year even though the Windows market domination continues.

What is 'winning' and how does it relate to market share in the new world of mobile devcies?


That's a serious and interesting question.

Does market share and winning have the same relationship now as it did in, say, 1995?

In the past, back in the days of the Wintel platform domination of the desktop PC market, having a large or majority platform market share was considered winning because:

a) A bigger platform market share meant bigger profits, a bigger business, lower costs. This was good because the point of making and selling things is to make a profit. As more and more revenue and profit was generated inside the platform with the largest market share more businesses could flourish, more products could be made, costs would go down in a virtuous circle.

b) A bigger market share meant a bigger developer mind share. The platform with the largest market share attracted the largest number of developers who wanted to maximise their sales income, which meant more software titles for that platform which meant another virtuous circle whereby more and more people would be attracted to that platform because it had more software.

c) A bigger market share meant that there were more peripherals for the platform. More peripherals were available and compatible for the platform with the biggest market share and this attracted customers to that platform which reinforced the majority market share in yet another another virtuous circle.

So back then getting and holding onto a majority market share was absolutely central to winning. Losing market share meant losing in general. Bigger market share meant more money, more developers and more peripherals. Which meant more customers. Which meant more market share. It all seemed so simple and obvious. Bigger market share must mean winning.

What's so interesting about the phone market is that none of the above seems to apply anymore. It seems as if winning and losing are a lot more complicated now and that there is now no connection between market share and wining or losing.

Consider:

Apple make the most money in the mobile phone business but does not have, has never had, and will probably never have, a majority market share of smart phones. As Android handsets have grown rapidly and pulled past iOS in market share Apple's revenues and profits from iOS have increased in both extent and rate. Apple makes by far the most profit in the phone business, with a minority market share. Money and profits no longer follows market share.

iOS has the best app ecosystem. Not only are iOS apps generally of a higher quality but crucially, even though there are more Android users than iOS, developers make a lot more money from iOS than from Android. Several times as much. Developers love iOS. For users there is no app deficit penalty for having a device with a smaller market share anymore and no prospect in the foreseeable future that iOS users will experience any app penalty for using a phone whose OS is not the largest. Quite the reverse in fact, using the minority iOS means better apps. Developer support no longer follows market share.

Because Apple has such a small number of phone models, and because they all use the same form factor for peripheral connectivity, iOS has by the far the largest peripheral market of any mobile platform. Conversely the sheer and slightly bonkers numbers of different Android handsets means that Android has a relatively impoverished peripheral market compared to iOS which has more cases, add ons, plugins, more scientific and medical peripherals, more compatible music systems and cars adaptors, etc etc. [i]So peripheral support no longer follows marke

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: silly advice
by unclefester on Mon 26th Dec 2011 06:12 UTC in reply to "RE: silly advice"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

...it is hardly anyones fault here that you're too bloody lazy to read up on the changes Steve Jobs along with is financial advisers did 14 years ago when he came back as the CEO.


Back in 1997 I was very familiar with what was happening at Apple - you were probably still sucking your thumb.

It was Bill Gates who saved Apple back in 1997 not Steve Jobs. It was the very public show of support by MS including an investment of $150m that really saved Apple. Without this Apple would have simply imploded.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidcoursey/2011/10/28/happy-birthday-...

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: silly advice
by glarepate on Mon 26th Dec 2011 13:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: silly advice"
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

It was Bill Gates who saved Apple back in 1997 not Steve Jobs.


I certainly see a lot of references nowadays to the settlement of this lawsuit as Apple being saved by an investment.

How come more companies haven't been saved by investments like this?

Reply Score: 2

Speak by spending $$
by jimmystewpot on Sat 24th Dec 2011 23:53 UTC
jimmystewpot
Member since:
2006-01-19

The continual improvement in Android hardware is excellent.. however the software of ALL the manufacturers can't keep up with the hardware pace, that's why we keep having these lagged upgrades. HTC etc simply can't keep up partially because of the bloatware, partially because they want to keep customers upgrading every year... unfortunately it's not going to work if they don't get the software updates, and the carrier terms are almost always 24 months now.. it's unacceptable to have a 24 month contract any only have 1 update, if your lucky 2..

I love android, but I can't stand the carrier/vendor arrogance around their update policies.. I am now a keen Cyanogen mod follower so I can get regular updates AND not have the hassle of carrier/software lock in.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Speak by spending $$
by unclefester on Sun 25th Dec 2011 00:05 UTC in reply to "Speak by spending $$"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

You may keep your new car 5-10 years. The manufacturer won't offer any upgrades at all during that period. If you want an improvement in performance, handling, braking etc you have the choice of either paying for modifications via a 3rd party or buying a new car.

If you don't expect a $100k car to get upgraded why would you expect a $100 phone to be upgraded?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Speak by spending $$
by Drumhellar on Sun 25th Dec 2011 03:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Speak by spending $$"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

If you don't expect a $100k car to get upgraded why would you expect a $100 phone to be upgraded?


Well, frankly, phones are not cars. Nobody has ever expected free upgrades to their car, but people expect that with their phones.

The fact that Samsung won't support even the most recent phones with software updates is alien. Microsoft still releases minor updates for XP, and for a while, provided new features for users who bought it years before. Apple does the same, with their desktops and their phones. For Samsung to ditch support of a still new phone for such a lame excuse is something that is unreasonable.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Speak by spending $$
by unclefester on Sun 25th Dec 2011 04:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Speak by spending $$"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13


Well, frankly, phones are not cars. Nobody has ever expected free upgrades to their car, but people expect that with their phones.



Really? I doubt that even 10% of people expect their phones to be upgraded for free (or at all).

I've owned mobile phones for around 20 years. Most of them have never been able to been upgraded in any way.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Speak by spending $$
by Drumhellar on Sun 25th Dec 2011 06:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Speak by spending $$"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Older phones are different (Though, I have gotten updates for a couple), but smart phones are different.

Apple has greater than 10% of the smartphone market, right? Their phones have seen major software updates for a while after release. Updates for Windows Mobile-based phones (pre 7) were frequently available, and Microsoft pushes WP7 updates, giving carriers limited ability to restrict updates. Blackberry phones received updates, as well.
HTC and Motorola lately have been committing to longer-term support than previously offered.

So, yes, whether or not you've been paying attention, OS updates on smart phones are expected.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Speak by spending $$
by unclefester on Sun 25th Dec 2011 07:56 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Speak by spending $$"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

So, yes, whether or not you've been paying attention, OS updates on smart phones are expected.


The fastest growing market is occurring in sub-$150 phones. These are considered to be basically disposable items. The owners don't expect them to be a long term investment and don't care less about upgrades.

Edited 2011-12-25 08:02 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Speak by spending $$
by zima on Sat 31st Dec 2011 19:29 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Speak by spending $$"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Not really true, such price ranges strongly imply uptake happening in places with much less "disposable" funds, where people are already known to hold onto their phones for a long time (and they actually own them / are typically on prepaid)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Speak by spending $$
by zima on Sat 31st Dec 2011 19:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Speak by spending $$"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

The fact that Samsung won't support even the most recent phones with software updates is alien. Microsoft still releases minor updates for XP, and for a while, provided new features for users who bought it years before. Apple does the same, with their desktops and their phones. For Samsung to ditch support of a still new phone for such a lame excuse is something that is unreasonable.

Come on, Apple removed a feature while releasing 4S - Siri was a free download in the Appstore, afterwards "introduced" by 4S.
They also push mass sales of their old models for much longer ...so the times of support since the end of large sales isn;t that spectacular.
And... old OSX versins are quickly obsoleted / abandoned (large part of that is dynamics of 3rd party devs on Apple platform, who for some reason target almost exclusively 'latest and greatest' but still)

Plus, Samsung in turn comes from the "old mobile" era, where the phones very much weren't updated; it's not alien in any way.


Well, frankly, phones are not cars. Nobody has ever expected free upgrades to their car, but people expect that with their phones.

Not strictly true, my car got free modification when the manufacturer came to conclusion there's a heightened chance of damage to one braking line; and I fully expect them to notify me again and arrange free visit to their servicing centre, if such issues would come to light once more.
Sure, "safety upgrade" ...well, that's also what large part of software upgrades are.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Speak by spending $$
by kaiwai on Mon 26th Dec 2011 01:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Speak by spending $$"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

You may keep your new car 5-10 years. The manufacturer won't offer any upgrades at all during that period. If you want an improvement in performance, handling, braking etc you have the choice of either paying for modifications via a 3rd party or buying a new car.

If you don't expect a $100k car to get upgraded why would you expect a $100 phone to be upgraded?


Because smart phones run sophisticated software that have bugs and security holes - as a consumer I expect that they provide software updates to address those short comings in a timely and responsible manner. Sorry, you're comparing a physical product to something (software) that can be replicated over and over again via the distribution channels (internet) for a few cents. The situation isn't even comparable.

Edited 2011-12-26 01:22 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Speak by spending $$
by Neolander on Tue 27th Dec 2011 23:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Speak by spending $$"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

And for the mandatory car analogy : if a Toyota car has a software bug that makes the brake pedal ineffective, as happened earlier, Toyota better push an update quickly in order to fix that security issue.

Edited 2011-12-27 23:14 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Speak by spending $$
by zima on Sat 31st Dec 2011 18:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Speak by spending $$"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

And for the mandatory car analogy : if a Toyota car has a software bug that makes the brake pedal ineffective, as happened earlier, Toyota better push an update quickly in order to fix that security issue.

(emphasis mine)

You know, this hardly ever happened, with any manufacturer (not only Toyota was "involved" in the past)... the "breakaway acceleration hysteria" (and similar) emerges once in a while, usually when the media circus picks up the claims of some incompetent driver who wants to escape the blame.

Curious how it's virtually always somebody, well, old - and, when the records are available (CCTV recording showing the brake lights never lighting up throughout the accident, also in cars where that's a simple switch on the brake pedal, with no software/computers in-between; or when "black box" functions became available) it was not even once what the driver claimed...

...most of the times, the ~senile driver simply panicked (confused acceleration for brake pedal, in panic pushed the "brakes" even harder, desiring to stop, which of course only had wildly opposite result)

Also curiously, it seems to happen virtually only in few places with mass adoption of automatic transmissions in passenger cars (maybe they do "disconnect" people a bit too much from having actual control and "feel" of their vehicle)

And brake systems didn't really yet cease being mostly hydraulically connected, I believe.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Speak by spending $$
by PresentIt on Mon 26th Dec 2011 19:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Speak by spending $$"
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

You may keep your new car 5-10 years. The manufacturer won't offer any upgrades at all during that period.

Actually, they will recall cars if they discover some problem that might cause to their customers. Lots of models have been recalled though the years because of flaws in the design (bugs).

Similarly, phones will have bugs. Especially with all the security problems everywhere it's important to provide updates.

You don't want someone to own your phone because of a security hole, right? You'd want it patched, right?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Speak by spending $$
by Alfman on Mon 26th Dec 2011 20:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Speak by spending $$"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

PresentIt,

"Actually, they will recall cars if they discover some problem that might cause to their customers. Lots of models have been recalled though the years because of flaws in the design (bugs)."

I've heard of plenty of incidents of manufacturers replacing things such as exploding tires and broken breaks in huge safety recalls, etc, but to my knowledge manufacturers won't replace/upgrade components after a warranty expires even if a defective component caused premature failure. Usually if anything stops working as intended, then it's up to the owner to pay to fix it. If I am mistaken then I could probably save a lot of money in auto repairs. I've even heard of some horror stores about them failing to cover their own warranties.


"Similarly, phones will have bugs. Especially with all the security problems everywhere it's important to provide updates."

Maybe phone manufacturers should be held accountable for security holes, it would give them much more incentive to provide updates... I'm not going to hold my breath though.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Speak by spending $$
by PresentIt on Mon 26th Dec 2011 20:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Speak by spending $$"
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

After warranty expires? Warranty expires right away on a phone?

Also, if the warranty expires and a huge dangerous problem is discovered with the car, they will do nothing?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Speak by spending $$
by Alfman on Mon 26th Dec 2011 21:16 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Speak by spending $$"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

PresentIt,

"After warranty expires? Warranty expires right away on a phone?"

I'm not sure what you are trying to say/ask here with regards to my post.

"Also, if the warranty expires and a huge dangerous problem is discovered with the car, they will do nothing?"

I explicitly mentioned the safety recall because I thought it was an exception to the rule. However I'm not sure this exception applies to mobile devices.


I'm actually agreeing with you that manufacturers should do their best to support after sale products. I just don't think they have much incentive to in the cheap disposable world we live in.


My own take is that open/unlocked devices would not only extend their useful lifetimes for the primary and after-market owners, it would cut back on a great deal of unnecessary environmental and manufacturing waste. Unfortunately, the goal of making the best use of resources doesn't align with the goal of making the most profits. Corporations choose profits, our environment pays the costs, such is life.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Speak by spending $$
by PresentIt on Mon 26th Dec 2011 21:29 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Speak by spending $$"
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

I'm comparing car safety and phone security holes. The car analogy was used to show that car manufacturers apparently don't offer the same level of support that people expect from phone manufacturers. I pointed out that cars are expected to not have major flaws in the first place.

While people expect bugs in software they also expect bug fixes. On the other hand, people expect cars to work properly without updates.

So the car comparison fails.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Speak by spending $$
by Alfman on Mon 26th Dec 2011 22:38 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Speak by spending $$"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

PresentIt,

"While people expect bugs in software they also expect bug fixes. On the other hand, people expect cars to work properly without updates.

So the car comparison fails."

Many cars require unplanned maintenance, so I'm not so sure about the first statement. However without a doubt I agree that car analogies have little place in computing, comparisons like that are bound to fail at a serious level of detail.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Speak by spending $$
by unclefester on Sun 25th Dec 2011 04:47 UTC in reply to "Speak by spending $$"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

In most countries, except the USA, phones are readily available unlocked or can be unlocked for a relatively modest fee.

Reply Score: 2

v update
by void_false on Sun 25th Dec 2011 09:29 UTC
RE: update
by unoengborg on Sun 25th Dec 2011 15:59 UTC in reply to "update"
unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

The problem is that most of the old devices don't work perfectly. Smartphones of today normally carry a lot of personal and sensitive information, and there will always be new bugs and security issues that will be found in their software.

So they will need at least bug fix releases of their existing software, and if you need to fix major parts of the software on a regular basis, why not upgrade it to the latest version while you are at it. It should be less expensive to the manefakturer to just keep track of the latest version.

Reply Score: 2

Android orphanage
by SonicMetalMan on Sun 25th Dec 2011 14:37 UTC
SonicMetalMan
Member since:
2009-05-25

I gave up on Samsung during the Behold II debacle, I bought one of the overpriced and overhyped phones only to find out it was never to see any updates beyond 1.6. It pissed me off so bad I picked up an old G1 from Craigslist and never looked back. In the future I will likely stick to HTC handsets as they seem to be more "friendly" and open. I have no reservations about rooting and using CM builds when needed but I sure do not want to do this on new phones.

Reply Score: 1

Big deal
by siki_miki on Mon 26th Dec 2011 01:44 UTC
siki_miki
Member since:
2006-01-17

Install CM9 and you have the. OK, they hired the CM dev, but one guy won't change them (or not yet), but it's hard to make a change in such behemoth.

Regarding Sammy, there is simply no excuse for this incompetence.
How does that TW crap take up so much space? I understand they want to differ, and probably are quite afraid of Google becoming "mobile Microsoft", but this bullet struck them back. An UI shell like TouchWiz taking that much space is the result of a mediocre team churning out bloatware. Kinda reminds me of the ICQ client that once upon a time was the most popular IM. Unlike Apple, samsung has no idea how to make software properly. They should take few guys from the Bada team and the CM dev to work it out, these guys at least know what they are doing.

Reply Score: 2

the press is to blame
by unclefester on Mon 26th Dec 2011 03:57 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

This is the sort of Apple PR drivel that gets published on a daily basis by a sycophantic press who seem to show absolutely no critical ability when it comes to Apple.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/8975382/Apple-plots-sma...

Sony produced a working fuel cell powered laptop over 5 years ago FFS. Yet this bit of Apple IP trivia is somehow considered to be a major breakthrough.

Reply Score: 2

It's because Android is a commodity
by phoehne on Mon 26th Dec 2011 07:15 UTC
phoehne
Member since:
2006-08-26

Two device manufacturers want to sell a phone through the same carrier. They can add minor tweaks, but it's largely the same O/S and roughly similar hardware. If you don't update your model as soon as the other vendor updates theirs, you will appear to have stagnated. It's called monopolistic competition, meaning that no vendor has monopoly pricing since other products are close substitutes but all products are somewhat different. Dish washing detergent or laundry detergent is the classic example of monopolistic competition.

The more similar the good that you are trying to sell, the harder it is to create the impression in the mind of the consumer that you're a better choice than your competitor. Apple is also part of this market, but their product is more dissimilar to all the Android products than they are from each other. Think of Android as being a cluster and Apple's iPhone is a point separated from the cluster. If I go in to a store and I want to buy a new phone, and I want an Android phone, I would probably be more likely to choose the brand new model rather than the one introduced some months ago.

I would expect the same thing to happen with Windows phones, with manufacturers trying to distinguish themselves by introducing new models at the same accelerated release cycle.

Reply Score: 1

The first article is way off the mark
by PresentIt on Mon 26th Dec 2011 19:19 UTC
PresentIt
Member since:
2010-02-10

As disappointed I am in this decision by Samsung, some of the article's claims are just silly:

Samsung protests that there's not enough RAM and ROM on the Galaxy S to operate Ice Cream Sandwich, but the Nexus S precedent tells me that the company could provide an unskinned build of Android 4.0 to users who'd like to upgrade their months-old phones.

Um, what? You expect Samsung, who actually made their own Shell for Android, to just throw it out in some future update?

Sorry, but that's BS. You can't expect them to ignore all the phones out there with their custom shell!

If you really want a stock android ROM, root it and install it from somewhere else.

I don't know if Samsung is lying about the phone not being able to run the most recent Android, but the comment in that article is just retarded. It looks like the writer actually believes Samsung, but still insists that Samsung should ignore the reality of things, throw out their work, and push stock Android onto their customers' phones.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

(Also, complaining that HTC releases multiple models a year is silly too. Sure, they may be overdoing it, but it's a good thing that there are different models available for different needs.)

Edited 2011-12-26 19:24 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Sticking with Moto
by marcus0263 on Tue 27th Dec 2011 03:10 UTC
marcus0263
Member since:
2007-06-02

Broke down and got the Atrix 4G mid year, last I checked it's set to get ICS. I also got mi Mum a Xoom, it's also set to get ICS. Samsung sorry, got your plasma but won't be getting your phone or table ;)

Reply Score: 1

Gazillion ? :(
by astrofra on Tue 27th Dec 2011 03:19 UTC
astrofra
Member since:
2007-02-16

Shall I add my voice here ?

http://astrofra.com/wordpress/2011/10/06/the-iphone-4s-software-pol...

Edit : in reply to the post above. Got a Moto Defy, same horse power as an iPhone4. Last time I checked, they released Android 2.2, period. The official 'Moto' way to get 2.3 is to purchase a Moto Defy +
I finally managed to install Miui on it... Sorry Moto, I don't trust you anymore.

Edited 2011-12-27 03:25 UTC

Reply Score: 1

It's the Fasr East production model
by danbi on Wed 28th Dec 2011 11:50 UTC
danbi
Member since:
2011-12-28

I believe the only sane explanation to this 'phenomena' lies in the way 'things' are manufactured in the far east (China, Korea.. name it). It sort of goes like this:

1: You get a product design. It maybe coming form your own R&D labs, or someone has ordered you the production to their own design, or you just hm.. borrowed it. (*)
Then you build the production lines. You might even build a plant for the purpose. You source all the necessary components and you start production. You produce few million of these things. Optionally, you dump the whole production line, or you keep parts of it. You go back to 1.

This production model says that a product is as good as it sells. If it is selling well, you repeat the process with "improvements". If the product is not selling well, you dump it at lower price to "secondary markets" (for some weird reason, the US market is considered primary, although there is least profit in there -- perhaps politics).

Following this production model lets you, the manufacturer not care at all about this "western" things as "customer support".

Reply Score: 1

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Similar dynamics were present in big mobile brands of a ~decade ago, when the production or support were largely in the fabled "glorious west"... really, drop the ~sinophobia.
(BTW, most of Nokia fabs are not in the Far East, ~half are in the EU, one is even quite close to Cupertino... doesn't do that much good, it seems, and/or nobody cares)

for some weird reason, the US market is considered primary

At the very least, it's certainly a very visible market with loud pundits; plus relatively homogeneous, easier to coordinate & push things.

Reply Score: 2