Is Samsung Blocking Updates To Froyo?

jfruhlinger writes "One of the complaints about Android is its fragmentation; many different versions of the OS are out there in the wild, and often users are held back from upgrading by their hardware or their carrier. But now a disturbing rumor has it that Samsung is strong-arming T-Mobile to prevent an over-the-air upgrade to Android 2.2 (Froyo) for Samsung Vibrant owners. The reason? Samsung wants people to shell out for the new Vibrant 4G — which, other than the fact that it ships running Froyo, is largely identical to the Vibrant." Reader CWmike contributes an informative link if you'd like to know which Android vendors are actually delivering timely upgrades.

Comments

Re:Demand your rights

[PCM2]

Customers should demand that the phone's come with documentation stating A) What upgrade rights the customer has

None. The product was sold as-is. You have the rights delineated in your warranty, which is included in the box. Next question?

Re:Open Platform?

[causality]

I find that I'm free to install whatever I want on my Nexus One. I suppose it depends which vendor you decide to get into bed with.

The real way to solve this problem is simple: financially. These are corporations after all.

What we need is a law or even just a precedent to be set. If a vendor deliberately and knowingly delays an already-existing software upgrade for the purpose of attempting to sell new hardware, make them legally liable for any malfunctions or security issues that the upgrade would have mitigated. So if the new version of Android would have fixed a security bug, and Samsung actively prevents that upgrade, they get to pay for any and all damages caused to any customer who gets exploited by that security bug.

Then let the vendors decide if they still think it's worthwhile to pull this shit.

For those who have trouble with basic reading comprehension, I am not suggesting that any vendor should be obligated to supply any such upgrades. What I am advocating would only take place if they deliberately and knowingly take action to interfere with their customers' ability to independently obtain and apply such upgrades. They are depriving their customers of the ability to make a decision; therefore they are making a decision for said customers; therefore they should bear the consequences.