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.
Thread beginning with comment 501340
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Speak by spending $$
by PresentIt on Mon 26th Dec 2011 22:49 in reply to "RE[7]: Speak by spending $$"
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

Cars that require unplanned maintenance don't all require it for the exact same thing. People basically expect their car to work properly, unlike software.

Edited 2011-12-26 22:49 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[9]: Speak by spending $$
by Alfman on Mon 26th Dec 2011 23:59 in reply to "RE[8]: Speak by spending $$"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

PresentIt,

I suspect products fail due to a bad design much more often than manufacturers will admit. As the owner of many thing which have broken in normal use, it's very frustrating to pay to replace them. If it's broken for one person, it's very likely to have broken for others too, unless it was actually misused. The question becomes how many units are affected and what is an acceptable rate of failure: 0.1%, 1%, 5%, 10%, 20%?

Regardless of the answer, I'm rather baffled about why you continue to use the car analogy despite having said that the car comparison fails. I guess I'm not sure what you're ultimately trying to say because it's muddied up by the car comparison, can you say what you mean about the smart phone software without resorting to an analogy?

Reply Parent Score: 2