Slashdot Mirror
Apple vs. Microsoft: a Tale of Two Mobile Updates
snydeq writes "The latest mobile updates from Apple and Microsoft provide a stark contrast, one emblematic of the differences between the two companies, InfoWorld's Ted Samson writes. Militantly on time, Apple's iOS 4.3 update offers significant new functionality, total disregard for what Apple considers outdated systems, and mandated silencing of user complaints. Microsoft, meanwhile, has finally managed to push out an alleged February update to a subset of users, along with a lamentation about having to deal with handset and carrier fragmentation."
Thank you for marketing WP7 in a post that seems like astroturfing. How does this relate to MS v Apple's updating mechanisms, again?
-Ryan
AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
Which essentially is updates "if the carriers & manufactures feel like it (but secretly they don't because they don't want to devalue their newer offerings)". Barring that, the end user either follows some obscure steps to upgrade their phone from some Android hacking website, or is told to go pound sand. Not very good options for common non-techie end users like my aunt.
Historically, most Apple devices you buy new today is good for about 2 years of firmware updates.
The article is considers Apple releasing this update on time and Microsoft releasing theirs late and in a piecemeal fashion as an indication of what the companies are like, but the author forgets two things. First, the iOS 4.2 was delayed (actually cancelled and later released as 4.2.1) when a WiFi bug was found. Granted it wasn't as long a Microsoft's delay, but still...
Second, the iPad was stuck at iOS 3.x for a long time after 4.x was available for the iPhone and iPod. It skipped 4.0 and 4.1 until it finally hit OS parity at 4.2.1. This was despite Apple controlling both the hardware and software as the article suggests.
As to Microsoft's offering, I have never considered WP7 to be a released product until they fixed the basic things like copy/paste. The old adage of always waiting for a ".1" release of a Microsoft product was true again. It was disappointing after they got it so right with Windows 7.
Microsoft issues an update: it's supposed to update the updating system for future updates. It bricks phones.
Apple issues an update: Adds a few minor features, fixes bugs, improves web browser performance. It Just Works.
I find the trolling with "mandatory silencing of complaints" ironic since one of the features in iOS 4.3 - a user preference for the switch on the iPad to function as orientation lock or mute - is specifically in response to user feedback.
Meanwhile, Google issues an update. You can't use it until your carrier/handset manufacturer says you can (it took a month for Gingerbread to show up even on Google's own Nexus).
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
Which phones out there get vendor supplied updates after 3 years?
Does it matter? Do we judge fairness by the lowest common denominator? The fact is that Apple was still happily signing people up for two year contacts with AT&T on brand freaking new iPhone 3Gs until last June. Now, it's ok that people who are contractually obligated to pay for service for the next 14+ months be left vulnerable to attack? This, just because Apple first started selling the device in '08 and other manufacturers have track records of treating their customers like crap? It may be a three year old phone to the guys currently playing with iPhone 5 or 6 prototypes under black curtains, but to some, it's well under a year old. Maybe these people shouldn't expect multitasking, (no way on that hardware) wallpapers, or the other various cool new iOS 4 features, but they sure as hell ought to be able to surf the web without their devices being compromised.
huh? i'm still getting updates for my PowerPC Mac Mini which has to be over 6 years old, and XP is going to be patched until 2014.