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.
Permalink for comment 501193
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Regulate carrier behavior
by saso on Sat 24th Dec 2011 18:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Regulate carrier behavior"
Member since:

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 Parent Score: 3