Android Update Alliance Already Struggling

adeelarshad82 writes "Earlier this year many Android phone vendors and U.S. wireless carriers made a long-awaited promise, which was to push timely OS updates to all new Android phones. Seven months in and especially with the release of Google Android 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich), PCMag decided to reach out to all those vendors and wireless carriers to see how things were coming along. Brace yourselves Android fans, you're not going to like the responses."

Comments

Netcraft confirms

[Anonymous Coward]

Android is dead!

Re:Netcraft confirms

[toadlife]

Should've used a bsd kernel as the base instead of a linux kernel. The stable driver ABI would make upgrading kernels (which is sometimes required when moving to new versions of Android) easier.

I say this half jokingly and half seriously.

Re:Netcraft confirms

[Anonymous Coward]

Irrelevant. The kernel isn't the issue, the applications require a certain level of hardware to work effectively. If that wasn't enough, all these companies are in the business of selling new units, not keeping old tech going on the latest OS and applications.

Apple do the same, they just have a tiny selection of devices and only churn a single model (storage options vary) once a year, or thereabouts. These other companies have a shotgun approach and have to compete on function/price between themselves, not on whether it has a fruit badge on the back. No mobile device company wants their current gen tech to last longer than the next incarnation. Just look the the home PC market to see where that leads. Sooner of later the tech is sufficient for the vast majority of people. We're a way off this with mobile tech, but it can't be far away. Quad core CPUs out in a few months, 1GB RAM in a fucking phone, plenty of storage for most people, screen of all sizes from the tiny iphone's up to near slate sizes. Two years, three? Not long that's for sure.

Re:Netcraft confirms

[toadlife]

Irrelevant. The kernel isn't the issue,

Oh really?

Then why are most of the bugs I see with new Samsung releases kernel related[1] bugs?

I understand the crapware that vendors integrate into ROMs takes time, but to dismiss the kernel as irrelevant part of the process is naive. Samsprint started working on their Gingerbread update for the Epic 4G early this year (I think around May) and barely released it in November, and due to issues are now working on a new update.

[1] I say this as someone who has had to patch my own kernel to prevent the broadcom chipset driver from spontaneously rebooting my phone.

Re:Netcraft confirms

[iluvcapra]

It would solve hardware driver issues, but carriers also do a lot of customization with apps and skins. Sense UI, Motoblur and Carrier IQ don't depend on a stable ABI.

Re:Netcraft confirms

[Miamicanes]

Not really. The lack of a stable ABI *is* a major problem, because it means that every time a new version of Android gets released that needs a newer kernel than the latest "official" one available for the phone, every proprietary loadable kernel module (for things like 4G data on carriers like Sprint) ends up breaking. As far as I know, not even the Nexus S 4G has buildable driver source available for its wimax interface, which is why every guerrilla ICS ROM for it has broken 4G. It's even worse for HTC phones, because they don't even release their drivers as proper loadable kernel modules -- they just compile them straight into a monolithic binary blob, then rip out the proprietary bits and dump the unbuildable kernel source on the curb.

This is the #1 problem Google really needs to solve -- binary driver breakage every time the kernel gets upgraded. Maybe they could create a stable thunking layer that allows a .ko built for a 3.(n+X) kernel to keep working on a 3.(n+Y) kernel, so every new Android release won't subject us to the usual cycle of 4G data that's instantly and semi-eternally broken. Or maybe just force the phone makers to blindly compile and release new unsupported proprietary .ko files for drivers with the latest kernel within 5 days of Google's official source drop, with the usual disclaimers that the new .ko files are untested, unwarranted, will cause birth defects, and might make you hunting for chocolate at 3am.

Re:Netcraft confirms

[roc97007]

Most of us can't peek under the covers, so it's entirely possible that Samsung starts porting new versions of Android early and really are running into a significant number of kernel related issues. I will give them that.

I think where Samsung is falling down is in keeping the users informed. Months go by with either silence or a grudging "we're working on it" with no indication of whether your model is included in "it" or how long "working" is estimated to take, and the users start to become justified in getting a mite testy. Or, say, switching platforms at upgrade time. The salescreature said we'd have to upgrade to a Galaxy S II to get Gingerbread. Daughter bought a Bionic instead, from a different carrier.

Re:Netcraft confirms

[gl4ss]

fixing the kernel bugs is pretty straightforward - they're clearly bugs.

now - a committee designing with 20 carrier product managers "what do the customers want?" takes time and lots of it and the end result is a piece of shit.

it's pretty clear samsung didn't allocate much resources to epic 4g or had trouble even defining what should be in the release(or the carrier couldn't figure it out - also you should note that between may and june there's the "dead" months of summer when nothing happens, which could have been spent on fixing kernel bugs yes, if someone had okayed spending time on them) - but that comes partially from samsungs shotgun approach to phone development of having multiple overlapping teams working probably in different countries on multiple models. though it's not as bad as it used to be with samsung! they used to ship vastly different phones which were clearly patchworked together by different teams and parts of sw sourced from random vendors(biggest indicator of this is the yesteryear samsung feature phones which had just a tacked on j2me vm that even had a different text input module than rest of the system(meaning inputting special characters etc worked differently than when inputting sms - this is why they got buried in the featurephone wars and have made a spectacular comeback in the smartphones now with android).

now sony-e's android approach seems much more unified for example - as was their regular feature phone efforts so it's possibly a corporate culture thing. I'm fairly confident that I'll get ics on my play. because I don't want to upgrade to a different device, not because a new device costs money but because none offer the same form factor..

but to original poster.. had they gone with bsd kernel.. they sure as fuck wouldn't be releasing source they didn't have to. it's not like "it's hacked to the moon" is a good selling argument to the opers they wish to please(they should try to please the end users though..)

the real problem is that handset manufacturers _want_ to do special models for carriers and for some reason some stupid people keep buying them on partial payment controls!

Re:Netcraft confirms

[vadim_t]

Or they could just, you know, release the source.

Re:Netcraft confirms

[Microlith]

The lack of a stable ABI *is* a major problem

Only for driver vendors that refuse to cooperate with the kernel community. They want to take advantage of Linux as a platform but not contribute to its success. The Kernel should be forced into a static ABI set for the sake of uncooperative, unhelpful vendors.

As far as I know, not even the Nexus S 4G has buildable driver source available for its wimax interface, which is why every guerrilla ICS ROM for it has broken 4G. It's even worse for HTC phones, because they don't even release their drivers as proper loadable kernel modules -- they just compile them straight into a monolithic binary blob, then rip out the proprietary bits and dump the unbuildable kernel source on the curb.

Sounds like a pile of shitty hardware vendors and shitty handset vendors. Pointing at the kernel ABIs is incorrect.

Or maybe just force the phone makers to blindly compile and release new unsupported proprietary .ko files for drivers with the latest kernel within 5 days of Google's official source drop, with the usual disclaimers that the new .ko files are untested, unwarranted, will cause birth defects, and might make you hunting for chocolate at 3am.

Or maybe these hardware vendors could actually start upstreaming their shit. Google too, since their shit infects so many drivers so deeply that many have to be rewritten to be pushed upstream.

Re:Netcraft confirms

[w0mprat]

I say this half jokingly and half seriously.

That'll get you two kinds of mod points.

Re:Netcraft confirms

[Archangel Michael]

Source Code isn't usually the problem. The bigger problems are locked boot loaders. AND for things like Drivers which they think hold all sorts of "proprietary" secrets they don't want to give away.

Here is a suggestion, since my phone is no longer supported by you Verizon/Motorola, please release everything we need to support our own damn phones. My phone is exactly one year old, and won't get ICS because ... well they can't be bothered.

Re:Netcraft confirms

[tomhudson]

with the usual disclaimers that the new .ko files are untested, unwarranted, will cause birth defects, and might make you hunting for chocolate at 3am.

... mmm ... chocolate!

The real problem is that there's a financial disincentive to carriers who do NOT break things, so don't expect this problem to be worked out any time soon (with "any time soon" being ~ the time the sun goes nova).

The real solution will be the same as we're now seeing on the desktop - the problem will go away when smartphones are obsolete (give it ~20 years). When every device you're near, from your car to your watch to your tv to the display on the shopping cart at the mall can route your calls and handle all the functionality of a smartphone (your data and applications just "follow you around" like a loyal puppydog), who's going to need a smartphone? They'll be the equivalent of a landline.

Re:Netcraft confirms

[toadlife]

but to original poster.. had they gone with bsd kernel.. they sure as fuck wouldn't be releasing source they didn't have to

I was the original poster. Correct that they wouldn't be obligated to release the source - and many vendors probably wouldn't, but if Google did maybe it would increase sales of their pure devices and put pressure on vendors to follow suit.

Yeah, I know I'm being overly idealistic here and letting my BSD fanboyism cloud my judgement.

Re:Netcraft confirms

[toadlife]

I'm sure you say that 50% funnily and 50% informatively

Re:Netcraft confirms

[bananaquackmoo]

The problem is that very few people actually want that software, and the quicker the manufacturers get this through their thick skulls the better. Sadly they've had years to do that already and it looks like its not going to happen.

Re:Netcraft confirms

[Miamicanes]

> Sounds like a pile of shitty hardware vendors and shitty handset vendors. Pointing at the kernel ABIs is incorrect.

Great strategy. It worked brilliantly as a way to bring open-source winmodem drivers to Linux. Oh, wait... it didn't, did it? We basically had proprietary binary drivers for Lucent winmodems that worked under a few specific distros, and IBM eventually did the same for THEIR audio/modem chipset for Thinkpads.

Yeah, someone finally did develop a true open-source HSP driver for his college thesis a couple of years ago and released it to the community, but for all intents and purposes, there were never open-source Linux winmodem drivers until almost a decade after they ceased to actually *matter* to anybody. It won't do us much good to get true open-source wimax drivers for a phone like the Nexus S 7 years after Sprint has switched to LTE.

This IS the #1 fundamental problem of American Android users, because it's the one problem we can't fix ourselves. Bootloaders get cracked, and just about any phone can be JTAG-reflashed if you're really determined. But without a way to use a radio modem (or camera, or GPS, or ???) .ko compiled for 3.x under a 3.y kernel, we'll be forever running into brick walls every time a new version of Android gets released, and forced to choose between ${new-version} and fast data/gps/camera/etc.

Re:Netcraft confirms

[garyebickford]

When every device you're near, from your car to your watch to your tv to the display on the shopping cart at the mall can route your calls and handle all the functionality of a smartphone (your data and applications just "follow you around" like a loyal puppydog)

By then, I hope I'll be living in a boat, far, far away from shore.

Re:Netcraft confirms

[shutdown -p now]

It's even worse for HTC phones, because they don't even release their drivers as proper loadable kernel modules -- they just compile them straight into a monolithic binary blob, then rip out the proprietary bits and dump the unbuildable kernel source on the curb.

Isn't that a clear-cut GPL violation?

Re:Netcraft confirms

[peragrin]

It is the shotgun approach that is the problem.

If HTC only released 2-3 models a year(plus localized variants for CDMA, GSM , etc) they would sell more overall units which means they could buy more product in bulk, which would lower the costs and increase their revenue. Apple is making money on the iphones because they are buying parts for cheap in bulk bulk quanties.

a smaller selection makes software modifications faster and easier too, and allows you to update them more easily.

Someday one of the android companies will realize quanity applies to more than just end products but also product units sold too.

Re:Netcraft confirms

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're you're doing the math wrong: the cost of releasing the source to you is not zero: is the loss of you not being anymore forced to buy a newer phone.

Re:Netcraft confirms

[scot4875]

Not even remotely the same thing; if you want a more apt comparison, look at how long Google's own phones are supported.

--Jeremy

Re:Netcraft confirms

[jrumney]

I would have thought that on Slashdot of all places, people would understand how it goes. Samsung salesman sees Google's announcement that ICS is in testing and decides he wants to announce that all Samsung phones will have the production ready update by next week to drive sales. Management agrees this is a good idea, but engineering points out that the timeline is unrealistic and all their engineering capacity is busy on new products. This just reinforces management's belief that engineering is lazy and difficult and they need to accelerate their plans to outsource to Elbonia. But just in case they hold back on announcing a concrete date.

Re:Netcraft confirms

[perryizgr8]

some people actually do prefer htc's and samsung's custom uis over the bland android standard.

Re:Netcraft confirms

[advocate_one]

Should've used a bsd kernel as the base instead of a linux kernel. The stable driver ABI would make upgrading kernels (which is sometimes required when moving to new versions of Android) easier.

could have... but they didn't... which says volumes about the suitability of the BSD kernel for their purposes

There's nothing to stop Google from choosing a particular version of the Linux kernel and only backporting security fixes to it... but they didn't. They've decided to keep updating the kernel to take advantage of the features that are appearing in the newer versions and also passing back their kernel work into the main tree.

If you need to scream at anybody, it's the hardware firms who are keeping their stuff in proprietary binary blobs

Re:Netcraft confirms

[NuShrike]

The real problem is still the Linux kernel and still. Without a HAL (yes you need one), you can't close-source the kernel drivers. Without a HAL, you have to port drivers every effing kernel release. Do you know how painful it already is for embedded (such as STBs)? They don't even bother updating kernels just so they can gain this stability.

Every kernel release also has compiler dependencies. Wholescale toolchain updates to match the kernel changes are effing-PITA because there's too many hardware sub-dependencies keyed to specific toolchains that it becomes a maintenance nightmare worse than RPM-hell.

Look at Android itself. It won't move beyond Java 1.5 because it would mean gcc 4.5+ and all the impending havok.

You can't built a platform when the foundation is nothing more than shifting sands every effing release. You may think GPL is correct and developers should suck it up, but that's really not grown up, real-world, bottom-line, project-schedules realistic. Even BSD, Windows, OSX proved you can have closed-source with a HAL, and MASSIVE OS stability for years.

The OS's API age is only a minor annoyance for a large amount of software innovation on this stable foundation. Then each large API jump is every decade or so, instead of every year. Yes at some point that binary blob won't be usable on some next-gen OS version, but until there's an actual Android hardware "platform", that issue won't last more than a year and a phone refresh away.

Re:Netcraft confirms

[toriver]

I dunno: There is no guarantee that when you download a GPL binary, the source you get access to is the same source that was used to build that binary. Or that you will be able to compile the source you get access to.

Re:Netcraft confirms

[roc97007]

Oh, I understand how it works, but Samsung has to realize that some significant number of customers are going to respond by jumping ship. And that's how it goes.

Re:Netcraft confirms

[chrb]

Your argument isn't new, and has been dubunked by respected kernel engineers. See Greg Kroah-Hartman's OLS 2006 keynote and stable_api_nonsense.txt. At best, allowing old drivers to load might provide compatibility for a few minor revisions of the kernel. It's a short step from that to proposing a regular (annual?) ABI update, and then you have drivers that might work for, say, 12 months, but are always ultimately going to break. (I say *might* because who is going to test these old drivers on new kernels? Even with hypothetical ABI compatibility, the reality is that changes in kernel behavior, scheduling, etc. can break a driver). The only way to ensure that a driver gets updated is to have the source. Even with Windows there is no complete compatibility, Microsoft releases a new baseline kernel every couple of years, and your old drivers will not work any more. It is common for companies to not update their old drivers for new Windows releases, which isn't really that useful when you have deployed systems still using that hardware.

Re:Netcraft confirms

[shutdown -p now]

There is no guarantee that when you download a GPL binary, the source you get access to is the same source that was used to build that binary.

I believe this is in fact quite explicitly mandated by GPL.

Also, the "monolithic binary blob" in this case is definitely derived work, not "mere aggregation", so, to comply with GPL for the kernel, source code needed to reproduce the entire blob needs to be available.

Re:Netcraft confirms

[ok2phone]

I like Android phones,less price and good quality and features. http://www.ok2phone.com/3g-phones-h7300.html

"Pledges"

[DanTheStone]

Why is anyone surprised? A pledge, not backed up by, say, a money-back guarantee, is meaningless. If these people could get a refund for their phones if they weren't updated, the "pledge" would have teeth. This is why nobody trusts companies who pledge not to sue over patents. This is why people didn't trust AT&T about their merger pledges. Pledges are just for PR and they mean nothing.

Re:"Pledges"

[InsightIn140Bytes]

If Google actually did something regarding Android things would be much better. This is exactly the reason why you cannot just throw something out and expect companies to do what you intended. Google needs to set certain rules regarding using Android on mobiles, and that includes updating your phones. Manufacturers aren't going to that otherwise because it means lost profits. But Google is incompetent, so they will not do that. You can even leave the source open, just demand that companies respect those rules if they want to use the trademark Android.

Re:"Pledges"

[Anonymous Coward]

I pledge to mod up!

Re:"Pledges"

[betterunixthanunix]

Google needs to set certain rules regarding using Android on mobiles, and that includes updating your phones

Yeah, except then Android would just be another proprietary cell phone OS.

You can even leave the source open, just demand that companies respect those rules if they want to use the trademark Android.

Then they won't use the trademark. So what?

Re:"Pledges"

[bonch]

Yeah, except then Android would just be another proprietary cell phone OS.

That's not an actual argument; it's just a label you're attaching to the idea of quality control. Platforms need leadership or they descend into chaos. Look at desktop Linux.

Re:"Pledges"

[betterunixthanunix]

Android already is licensed from Google. That makes Android proprietary software too.

No, it means that it is not in the public domain. Proprietary does not mean "licensed," it means "licensed under proprietary terms." If we are going to have a free/libre cell phone OS, then we cannot promote proprietary licensing, and that includes licenses that forbid forking or that require upgrading.

Ultimately, the goal should be to open cell phones, so that your cell phone gives you as much freedom as a typical laptop can. Opening the source of Android was a step in the right direction; this is not the time to take a step backward.

Re:"Pledges"

[sessamoid]

To answer your question about why anyone would be surprised, it's because Google is still held in a glowing light, at least on tech sites, and people still take them for their word.

Would those people be interested in buying some oceanfront property in Nebraska?

Re:"Pledges"

[metamatic]

Google needs to set certain rules regarding using Android on mobiles, and that includes updating your phones.

They do. If you want a phone like that, buy a Nexus.

Re:"Pledges"

[ColdWetDog]

Google needs to set certain rules regarding using Android on mobiles, and that includes updating your phones.

They do. If you want a phone like that, buy a Nexus.

I tried, but Sean Young isn't for sale.

Re:"Pledges"

[fotoflojoe]

Exactly. It's just like Home Depot touting their "Guaranteed lowest prices". What the hell does that even mean? I have mod points, but I wanted to post.

Re:"Pledges"

[betterunixthanunix]

You cannot have a good OS if there isn't someone who organizes and runs things, and that includes providing updates to older phones.

So who is pushing out the updates for GNU/Linux then? You know, the OS that is widely used (at least in servers, supercomputers, and other demanding computing environments) and whose core components are maintained by dozens of different organizations? Yeah, you can have a good OS without having one entity controlling everything; there are numerous Linux distros out that there help keep packages up-to-date on their users' systems, and they each have different ideas on how to do that.

In the real world no one actually cares if the mobile OS is open source or not

They certainly do, they just do not use the terms "open source" or "free software." People do generally care about the fact that their phones will not allow them to do the things they want to do, just not enough to become experts on how to hack a phone and avoid the restriction systems.

for majority of people using a proprietary OS isn't "taking a step backward".

Probably because the majority of people are already using a locked-down cell phone that restricts what they are able to do. Go take someone's jailbroken phone and exchange it for one that is locked down and cannot be jailbroken, and I am pretty sure you will hear them complaining about it.

Re:"Pledges"

[zeroshade]

Actually, if you aren't within certain parameters of the Android Comptability Test Suite, then you can't use the Android trademark, and if you aren't using the Android Trademark then you cannot include any of the google proprietary Apps, which would be Maps, Gmail, Market, etc.

Re:"Pledges"

[tlhIngan]

No, it means that it is not in the public domain. Proprietary does not mean "licensed," it means "licensed under proprietary terms." If we are going to have a free/libre cell phone OS, then we cannot promote proprietary licensing, and that includes licenses that forbid forking or that require upgrading.

Ultimately, the goal should be to open cell phones, so that your cell phone gives you as much freedom as a typical laptop can. Opening the source of Android was a step in the right direction; this is not the time to take a step backward.

Don't mistake AOSP for Android. Android is only available to OHA members, and it included stuff like Honeycomb source code (which was under a very restrictive license), as well as access to the Google Apps, which make Android, well, Android (e.g., the Google Marketplace - it's extremely difficult to get apps without Marketplace access - it's easier to pirate than to try to find an official download).

Cyanogen is using AOSP. And periodically Google pushes code from Android into AOSP. But Google controls the Android stuff for OHA members.

Google can very well dictate update terms - they dictated how the Honeycomb source code was to be distributed, after all. They even dictated what you can and cannot do with the source and what customizations you could apply.

Chinese manufacturers and everyone else using AOSP can disobey at will because they're using the free license, but the OHA members getting early code access and such cannot. Hell, Google can make it a part of the Google Apps licensing agreement.

Re:"Pledges"

[FrankSchwab]

I did, but I don't see an ICS package for my Nexus S anywhere. Seen one?

Re:"Pledges"

[Rich0]

Then they won't use the trademark. So what?

So, at least then I can buy a phone and know in advance what kind of experience I'm going to have. Right now it is anybody's guess whether one phone will have updates for a year, or if you're receiving it as-is for the rest of its life. About the only thing it seems you can count on is that no android phone will receive updates for your full contract length - Google is even abandoning the Nexus One and it isn't even two years old.

Re:"Pledges"

[thomasw_lrd]

It means that if I have a Lowe's ad, for concrete blocks for $.99 but Home Depot sells them for $1.99, then I can take my ad to Home Depot and buy the blocks for $.99. Home Depot banks on the fact that most people are too lazy to shop around for the lowest price.

Wal-Mart and O'Reilly Autoparts do the the same thing. Although, O'Reilly's is the best because you don't even have to an ad. Just tell them, the part is cheaper at Autozone, and they will discount it for you.

Re:"Pledges"

[w0mprat]

Why is anyone surprised? A pledge, not backed up by, say, a money-back guarantee, is meaningless. If these people could get a refund for their phones if they weren't updated, the "pledge" would have teeth. This is why nobody trusts companies who pledge not to sue over patents. This is why people didn't trust AT&T about their merger pledges. Pledges are just for PR and they mean nothing.

Money, yes, this is all about under resourcing in development. Where ever I hear about updates being too slow to come to $any_software_platform I immediately too little has been invested development and testing, at least too little compared to the scale of the task. Little reason to trust then.

The modding community gets new versions of OSes on to devices fast and this is in a fragmented environment. A lot of carriers and OEMs would do well to take a look at how those guys do it because they are doing something right.

Re:"Pledges"

[jbolden]

Good point. Google does have a lot of credibility after quite a few failed promises. On the other hand they have also delivered some amazing technology for free for a very long time.

Re:"Pledges"

[fotoflojoe]

Yeah, as I was typing it out, the notion of price-matching had occurred to me. Still, "Guaranteed lowest prices" sounds like vague, weasel-words style advertising to me.

Re:"Pledges"

[GauteL]

"Why is anyone surprised? A pledge, not backed up by, say, a money-back guarantee, is meaningless. If these people could get a refund for their phones if they weren't updated, the "pledge" would have teeth. "

Truth in advertisement. It is the law. You could demand your money back or take them to small claims court. On the other hand, if your country of origin doesn't have proper consumer laws you could campaign for them or give up.

Re:"Pledges"

[nazsco]

I will tell you after i'm done looking for one for my Nexus One.

Re:"Pledges"

[amRadioHed]

It's being rolled out this month. Updates always take a few months to make it to existing phones, even from Google.

Re:"Pledges"

[AmiMoJo]

Google Apps, which make Android, well, Android (e.g., the Google Marketplace - it's extremely difficult to get apps without Marketplace access - it's easier to pirate than to try to find an official download).

I think you will find that Amazon's Android device has a perfectly good alternative to the Google Market. Many manufacturers offer their own mini app stores too. You can just download apps from any website too.

Also take a look at Cyanogen, it doesn't come with Google apps but has alternatives. Some manufacturers just don't bother with installable apps or any of the Google apps to keep costs down on really cheap phones. You can get a basic Android phone for 40 quid now.

Re:"Pledges"

[Lisias]

PROTEST. The parent IS NOT A TROLL.

You can disklike the opinion, but it's a solid one nevertheless: desktop Linux is a mess nowadays.

Re:"Pledges"

[perryizgr8]

too expensive :(
and they stop selling older models as soon as a new one is relesed. this is bullshit at another level. i wanted to buy a nexus but the price of galaxy nexus is simply unbelievable! and i would have been satisfied with nexus s too (or even nexus one), at a reduced price (like iphone). but google says no.

Re:"Pledges"

[Rennt]

A lot of carriers and OEMs would do well to take a look at how those guys do it because they are doing something right.

I have a feeling Samsung hired Steve Kondik for this very reason.

Fragmentation

[bonch]

Android is more like a collection of related but not entirely compatible operating systems. The inability to have a consistent version of the operating system across current smartphones is really surprising for something that's supposed to be an open source project, but one of the big drawbacks of Android is how much control Google gives the carriers over your phone.

Re:Fragmentation

[RogerWilco]

The same is true for Linux isn't it?

From a software vendor point, it's one of the main reasons not to develop for such a platform. Supporting multiple Windows versions is already a pain for a smaller software developer.

Re:Fragmentation

[bonch]

You can target the same API and hit all those "related but not entirely compatible operating systems".

Not without tremendous support costs, and mobile developers have been public about this. In addition to the software APIs, there are multiple hardware devices to target with varying capabilities. Even the very existence of variable screen resolutions completely screws up the ability to have a single, unified, cohesive interface across multiple phones.

Android was designed from the ground up to handle significant differences between handsets and OS versions, and gives developers tools for dealing with that gracefully. Whether or not they do it right is another story.

It may have been Android's intention to seamlessly target multiple hardware devices, but you pretty much cap the point yourself--whether or not it actually does is another story. Developer support for Android has declined by one-third over the course of this year.

Re:Fragmentation

[bonch]

I've always loved that argument. It's like saying McDonald's shouldn't improve its food because it's the most popular restaurant, or that Justin Bieber is a better artist than Mozart because he sells more music per year.

Re:Fragmentation

[jeffmeden]

Android is more like a collection of related but not entirely compatible operating systems. The inability to have a consistent version of the operating system across current smartphones is really surprising for something that's supposed to be an open source project, but one of the big drawbacks of Android is how much control Google gives the carriers over your phone.

Sounds like someone has very little understanding of what Android is or does. The source can be compiled and run on nearly any device bearing the "Android" name, the big issue is that they are each so unique that it takes a significant amount of dedicated code for each device to perform to the fullest of its ability. Trying to make a version that literally ran on every single phone and tablet would result in a monstrously bloated OS that was impossible to update on its own anyway, so these sorts of complaints are really surprising in their own right due to the naivete required to lodge them. And as for the carriers having control; they are the ones selling and supporting the phone (not Google) so they rightly deserve a modicum of control. Whether the carrier chooses to do something good or bad with that control is a matter of perspective to the consumer and they should be expected to respond to that. After all, if they wanted to buy something that acted exactly the same way on every single branded device on every single carrier, they could have chosen that one to begin with.

Some call the fact that Android is co-opted by handset makers to do a variety of wonderful things on a huge array of unique platforms a problem...

Re:Fragmentation

[Anonymous Coward]

Even the very existence of variable screen resolutions completely screws up the ability to have a single, unified, cohesive interface across multiple phones

You're right. It's pointless to have a UI if it's not 100% pixel perfect and consistent across phones. See, when I download an app, I do so on 5 different handsets and visually compare them, and if they're not completely the same I know that there's no way the app can provide useful functionality to me. How can I use an app that looks slightly different on my friend's phone. Why would I accept such a thing?

I'm so glad they decided on a single browser, screen size, and feature set for the web all those years ago. Without that, the web would never have been such a runaway success.

Re:Fragmentation

[naasking]

one of the big drawbacks of Android is how much control Google gives the carriers over your phone.

This is how the handset market was already structured. Google has nothing to do with this.

Re:Fragmentation

[jbolden]

Linux does quite well for embedded. The question is are phones more like embedded systems or more like desktops?

Re:Fragmentation

[Belial6]

Yep, they would have looked at the market share leader on the desktop and come to the obvious conclusion that.... fragmentation works out for operating systems.

Re:Fragmentation

[jeffmeden]

I've always loved that argument. It's like saying McDonald's shouldn't improve its food because it's the most popular restaurant, or that Justin Bieber is a better artist than Mozart because he sells more music per year.

Why, pray tell, should McDonalds improve their food? Except for the (possibly valid, depending on where you fall in the support of Nanny-State vs Libertarianism) argument that their food is unhealthy to the point of being a risk to public health, the fact remains that people by the billions *choose* to eat there in the face of many many alternatives.

Is it the "best" food by a metric of healthfulness or flavor? Not many will argue that it is. Is it nevertheless sought after by billions worldwide? Unless all their customers are somehow deceived or defrauded while frequenting McDonalds, what exactly is the problem with accepting the fact that it is an immensely popular product? Should only those companies whose standards align with *yours* be permitted to be popular?

Re:Fragmentation

[hazydave]

It's not actually as bad as the pundits and iPhone fanbois suggest. Yet.

For one, to a real software applications engineer (which the part that really matters), fragmentation means "my stuff doesn't run on some units". That's possible, but it's pretty rare. The primary reason for restricting a device from running a particular application is resources ("it just wouldn't work here") and politics ("we're restricting this for absolutely no reason the user will every understand, but trust us, it's good for you... and have your tried our equivalent"). That latter one is the very definition of Apple's iTunes store. Not really hurting Apple. The former is progress.

The UI "fragmentation" is not an actual problem. Sure, if you buy a device with Motoblur or some other shell enhancement, there's a little adjustment to do. Not as much necessarily as adjusting to iOS, Windows Phone, or even moving from Android 2.0 to 3.0 or 3.0 to 4.0. This is usually what the pundits whine about, and it's meaningless.

Google isn't "giving the carriers control".. Google is releasing a free OS. Everyone wants freedom for themselves, but they get all bent out of shape when it's freedom for the other guy. Yeah, these telcos can mess with Android all they want. That's precisely why Android has 60% or whatever of the smartphone market... they have things on Android they'll never have elsewhere. To an extent, it's Google's job to make stock Android so good that no one bothers with alternate shells or anything like that, and just bloats you with unused apps. And at least 4.0/ICS deals with that -- you can't deleted a ROMed app, but you can "disappear" it. Good enough, methinks.

That same freedom that the carriers have is available to everyone. No, I'm probably not going to build a custom Android ROM for my phone. But I could. On the other hand, the fact my tablet has Honeycomb rather than Foyo on it is entirely due to the fact it's all open.. even though the Honeycomb sources were never independently released (you can actually build Honeycomb from the ICS sources now, if you must). It's either free or it's not. I'll take freedom, even knowing that includes the freedom to do evil.

Google could solve this all.. I've been advocating an improved version of the way the PC worked. As horrible as the PC was, IBM's taking the CP/M notion of the BIOS into ROM on the PC changed everything. This let Microsoft, not IBM, release new versions of MS-DOS and Windows. True, there were issues... like missing drivers.

Google should build a modern hardware abstraction layer (HAL) standard for Android. This would contain micro-drivers for every hardware device in an Android computer. Motorola, Samsung, etc. would write their own HALs for their phones, update them at will (and independently of Android)... this abstracts everything you need to know about the phone's hardware.

Android would then plug into this HAL. And this is a huge win for everyone involved.

HTC and Motorola and Samsung could still make their own custom builds, with whatever they want to put in there. But they'd only need one per generation of software, not a separate build for each device. This wouldn't just make their job easier, it would make support of older devices much, much easier -- as long as you have the resources to run the new version, it just works. Sure, they'd have to test it on the older systems to deliver their level of quality. Still, much less work than a new custom build.

These guys could push their new OS direct, but they could also distribute via the Android Market. So could Google... they could release a generic Android build for each new version, which would work on any HAL-based Android device. For business purposes, Google could allow the OEMs a window to provide support of their own before Google did... that's just a flag for your particular device in Market.

And of course, the community developers like Cyanogen(mod) would have a much easier time. No need to worry about zillions of different full builds containing all drive

Re:Fragmentation

[Toonol]

Even the very existence of variable screen resolutions completely screws up the ability to have a single, unified, cohesive interface across multiple phones.

That's why we are only allowed 640x480 resolutions on our PC, of course.

Re:Fragmentation

[Toonol]

It's like saying McDonald's shouldn't improve its food because it's the most popular restaurant

McDonald's SHOULD try to improve their food; they should be trying to make it more uniform, consistent, and inexpensive. That's their niche, and it would be disastrous to try to improve the taste of their food while destroying its other values.

It's a great niche, and very important. A superb gourmet restaurant may have better tasting food, but their food isn't nearly as good as McDonalds' in other aspects. Those other aspects matter.

Re:Fragmentation

[jbolden]

If Google were marketing a toolkit and not a platform that would be fine. But Android is marketed as a platform and seen as a platform. For a platform having a blase "we don't care what the hardware manufacturers do" is not acceptable. What Android manufacturers do determines platform policy. Google as the platform leaders is responsible for platform policy. If carriers or manufacturers implement bad policies and Google is blase about it, then consumers are quite correct in rejecting the platform.

Notwithstanding that Android might be a good toolkit.

Why do you think..

[GrBear]

Why do you think Steve Jobs pushed to hard with AT&T and demanded full control over the OS? So shit like this wouldn't happen with the iPhone platform.

Money grubbing cell carriers would rather have your device locked down, so if you want the latest features, you buy a new phone.

And yet people are still surprised that Android is becoming more fragmented every day. The drawing has been on the wall since the launch of the the OS.

Re:Why do you think..

[bonch]

If Google isn't careful, the problems may become great enough to allow Microsoft to slip in and gain non-trivial marketshare, at the very least in the enterprise where they have long-standing relations. Based on Eric Schmidt's recent remarks, Google is betting on having so much marketshare that people don't have a choice but to work with them, whether they "like it or not."

Re:Why do you think..

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he didn't say that, YOU did.

Re:Why do you think..

[InsightIn140Bytes]

Apple demanded control from carriers to themselves, and as far as I know, keeps updating their devices. iPhone users keep getting updates, Android users don't.

Re:Why do you think..

[GrBear]

I never said the iPhone wasn't locked down, I simply stating that the carrier was holding ALL the keys on an Android device, to the point of strangling future OS (and feature) upgrades unless they approve them.

Re:Why do you think..

[obarthelemy]

is it though ?

http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-versions.html

2.2 + 2.3 = 85%
Add in 2.1 and you get to 95%

95% covered in 3 minro revisions doesn't seem too bad, especially with the speed of Android versions slowing down.

Re:Why do you think..

[betterunixthanunix]

The solution to that is not "let Google control things instead!" The solution is to start freeing cell phones from restrictions, so that people can upgrade the OS themselves. People should not be forbidden from upgrading their phone's software any more than they should be forced to do so -- just like nobody is forced to upgrade the software on their PC if they do not want to (and plenty of people have reasons for not wanting to upgrade). Instead of talking about how to give Google control over everyone's Android phone, we should be talking about ways to give the users themselves control.

Re:Why do you think..

[Kenja]

Yes. Thats why Apple release Siri for older phones. Its because they dont want you to buy the latest iProduct.

Oh wait...

Re:Why do you think..

[bonch]

Are you seriously trying to push the argument that the iPhone is not locked down? Really?

Um, the very sentence you quoted specifically states that Steve Jobs pushed for "full control over the OS," so obviously, he was talking about wresting control away from the carriers so that you're not going through a chain of phones all the time to catch up with the new OS. In fact, it's a credit to Apple that they push out updates for older phones; the two-year-old iPhone 3GS is still selling well.

How do you even pronounce "fanboism?"

Re:Why do you think..

[Lunix Nutcase]

2.2 to 2.3 is far more than a "minor revision". It is a new major version considering all the system changes, UI changes, API additions and updates, etc.

Re:Why do you think..

[geek]

Siri processing is done server side. There have already been hacks released that let Siri run on older devices, from iPhone 3GS to iPad 1. Apple quickly put an end to that. There is no technical reason why Siri can't run on older devices. Apple chooses not to do it.

Re:Why do you think..

[Kenja]

It couldn't possibly be because the older iPhones don't have the CPU power to run it.?

Given that it was written for and on older phones and people have in fact back-ported it to unlocked older phones, I'm gona say "no".

Re:Why do you think..

[Anonymous Coward]

Eric Schmidt is an idiot. Google is in the position that it is in because of two amazing products: Search and GMail. YouTube comes in close, but I wouldn't qualify it as "amazing," rather just something that they bought that caught on before anyone else. They survived based on those products, and because, fortunately for Google, no one beat them at their own game during Schmidt's tenure.

Schmidt had nothing to do with that, and under his "leadership," the company did not build anything of serious merit. In fact, the only thing that I ever noticed Google do under Schmidt is go against their motto: it became more evil, particularly with their advertising and lobbying.

For everyone that wants to see Ballmer vaulted from Microsoft, there should be at least twice as many people hoping to see Schmidt lose his Chairmanship at Google, or at least completely muzzled so that he quits saying stupid things, which is all that he knows. He is seriously the least impressive Chairman of all major, noteworthy tech companies and he was an engineer!

Re:Why do you think..

[kimvette]

Siri was originally available as an app in the app store, on the iPhone 4 and it has since been hacked to install on older phones such as the 3GS. When the iPhone 4S came out, it was announced that the app would be removed from the app store, and even if you had purchased it on your iPhone4, it will no longer work. It is not a hardware limitation at all.

Re:Why do you think..

[swb]

There's two kinds of locked down. "Locked down" relative to the OS vendor (which the iPhone is) or "locked down" relative to the cell phone carrier (which the iPhone is not).

Generally the latter is worse, IMHO, as the carriers have no incentive to improve a device with software updates and in many cases disable or cripple features in a deliberate attempt to drive up fees and require a phone replacement to get a 'new' feature your current hardware supported natively from its manufacturer.

Items such as file transfer were crippled by carriers so you would pay to use their MMS service or email services to transfer photos off your phone. As is evident with many Android phones, most carriers don't bother to update phone software -- on ANY phone.

Re:Why do you think..

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, there's a large number of devices that HAVE been getting updates. Galaxy S series, the Nexus series, the Xperia series... Not all phones have updates, nor should they. If you buy a cheap phone, then you shouldn't expect updates.

Re:Why do you think..

[rivaldufus]

So my iphone 3G will be updated to iOS 5?

Re:Why do you think..

[stephanruby]

Why do you think Steve Jobs pushed to hard with AT&T and demanded full control over the OS?

So that no one could provide 4G service for the iPhone/iPad for a couple of years? So that no one could use FaceTime ahead of schedule? Am I getting close? Is any one else wandering why the iPad still looks like an over-sized phone and the Android Honeycomb tablet simply doesn't? What's up with that?

Money grubbing cell carriers would rather have your device locked down, so if you want the latest features, you buy a new phone.

Yes, money grubbing Apple would rather have your device locked down, so if you want the latest features, you buy a new phone/tablet.

Your explanation actually makes complete sense. Thank you.

Re:Why do you think..

[w0mprat]

The solution to that is not "let Google control things instead!" The solution is to start freeing cell phones from restrictions, so that people can upgrade the OS themselves. People should not be forbidden from upgrading their phone's software any more than they should be forced to do so -- just like nobody is forced to upgrade the software on their PC if they do not want to (and plenty of people have reasons for not wanting to upgrade). Instead of talking about how to give Google control over everyone's Android phone, we should be talking about ways to give the users themselves control.

Google makes sure there is a pure android experience on the market (Nexus One, S, Galaxy Nexus) as a benchmark, to kind of show carriers how it should be done. It's actually a clever way to discourage bloat by showing consumers what to demand.

Re:Why do you think..

[BasilBrush]

As you know the 3GS is the minimum spec for iOS5. The 3G has half the memory and half the speed of the 3GS. The only reason it doesn't get iOS 5 updates is because it's not capable of running them. It's a 3 and a half year old phone.

That differs from Android, in that phones that are only a few months old don't get Android updates - certainly not promptly, and often not at all.

Re:Why do you think..

[BasilBrush]

The solution is to start freeing cell phones from restrictions, so that people can upgrade the OS themselves.

Spot the geek. Suggest a solution that isn't a suitable solution for 99.9% of the population.

A real solution promptly offers to upgrade a phone's software when a new version comes out. Rather like iOS.

Re:Why do you think..

[Belial6]

I am hoping that this is what happens to Motorola. I want to see Google become a minority handset maker that prices their phones so that they remain profitable, but at a 10-20% market share.

Re:Why do you think..

[jbolden]

No I think he is trying to say it is not locked down by a carrier. Apple's incentives and the carrier's incentives are quite often different. Apple wants to maintain handset brand loyalty while the carrier wants handsets to be a commodity and maintain carrier loyalty.

I do disagree with GP's comment about carriers wanting you to buy new phones for financial reasons. New phones cut deeply into their margins.

Re:Why do you think..

[jbolden]

It got 3 years of updates. The life of a phone is 2 years.

Re:Why do you think..

[jbolden]

The start of the smartphone boom was blackberry, and Palm not Apple. And they also wrestled control away...

Manufacturer: "You will make a huge margin and we run the end user experience"

which Apple changed to
Apple: "We will make a huge margin. You will still do pretty well and we run the end user experience".

Re:Why do you think..

[pmathew]

If user is in control he would find all the way to break stupid restrictions like no tethering ... They have smartly placed themselves as a middle man taking a cut out of every phone sold ... and the trying to make more money by telling " i will give you 200 mb of data but thats not yours but your phones if you wanna use it for some emergency on your pc cough up 10 bucks" ... "oh yeah dont try to cheat , if you mod your phone i take your guarantee "

Re:Why do you think..

[jbolden]

As far as I know the issue with 4G is battery life. Apple can't get the battery life and antena quality where they want it to be. Yes Apple making those sorts of tradeoffs in customer's best interests, not what they perceive as their best interests is why people buy Apple.

Re:Why do you think..

[rivaldufus]

I must have missed that legislative ruling. I didn't realize there was a fixed life of a phone... other than the carrier's upgrade cycle.

Anyway, my point is, no one updates device software forever - but most people here on macdot.org are making that assertion. Saying, "Apple updates the old devices... but, that device is too old" is not the same thing as "Apple updates all the old devices continually."

It would seem that many people aren't keeping a phone even two years now. I've known quite a few people to upgrade their phone as often as possible, (including iPhone 4 to 4s) so this all may be irrelevant. I'm 100% sure that Apple, Samsung, Motorola, and friends wouldn't mind selling a new phone once a year.

Re:Why do you think..

[jbolden]

Carriers are throwing lots of money in getting people to upgrade. On an Apple phone you are throwing away $15-18/mo in subsidy by not upgraded. You are being well compensated to update regularly. I think it is a fair assumption you will.

. I'm 100% sure that Apple, Samsung, Motorola, and friends wouldn't mind selling a new phone once a year.

Oh they would love to sell you a new phone once a month. The problem is cost. Consumers are only willing to pay so much for great (and improving) cell phone service. Manufacturers get a percentage of that and sometimes some cash direct from the consumer (price with 2 year contract). There is a healthy used market for phones so people willing to spend much more can upgrade more regularly at a sane cost. But that is a small percentage of users.

Re:Why do you think..

[shutdown -p now]

You do understand that 3.x was a tablet-only release, right?

Re:Why do you think..

[toadlife]

That differs from Android, in that phones that are only a few months old don't get Android updates - certainly not promptly, and often not at all.

You can't do an one to one comparison of iPhone to Android. iPhone is a premium product which ignores the low-end market, while Android devices vary from bare bones, entry level, barely-better-than-feature-phone phones to super high-end devices that compare to exceed the latest iPhone hardware.

The Android devices that typically don't get updates are the cheap ones, while the high end ones get plenty of updates. My Epic 4G (GalaxyS) shipped with Eclair and has since been updated to Froyo and now Gingerbread.

Re:Why do you think..

[darkmeridian]

LOL, no. Siri is available for iPhone 4S, you know, the "new" iPhone 4 that they had to release to keep their fans appeased while they were working on iPhone 5. The Samsung Galaxy S II were taking up way too much marketshare so they had to drop something. Siri is NOT available for iPhone 4.

Re:Why do you think..

[CODiNE]

2 hardware reasons: iPhone 4S has better noise-canceling microphone hardware. Siri gets better performance using the built in mic than a bluetooth headset. The iPhone 4 and 3GS would have similar lesser accuracy in noisy environments.

The iPhone 4S has a redesigned proximity sensor so it can detect when the phone is held up about half a foot away from your face. The iPhone 4 and 3GS can only detect when they're pressed against your face. So the "lift to speak" feature would not work on them.

There's many angles that influenced the decision to only put Siri on the iPhone 4S, sales are certainly part of that decision. But hardware limitations and a desire to have Siri shown in the best possible light should not be discounted. There's enough complaints about Siri's voice recognition accuracy already, putting it on older hardware with lesser microphones would make those complaints multiply.

Re:Why do you think..

[BasilBrush]

iPhone is a premium product which ignores the low-end market

Maybe once. Now you can get an iPhone 3GS for free with a contract.

My Epic 4G (GalaxyS) shipped with Eclair and has since been updated to Froyo and now Gingerbread.

The same day new phones shipped with those OS versions, or some months later? Android 4.0 - Ice Cream Sandwich - is shipping on new phones now. Have you got it yet, or are you still on 2.3?

Re:Why do you think..

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

When the 3G shipped, the g1 came out. When the 3G stopped getting support, the g1 was already 2 or 3 years behind the rest of the Android ecosystem.

Choice is great. But when Microsoft is doing better than you in UI and customer experience, throw in the towel.

Re:Why do you think..

[jareth-0205]

2.2 to 2.3 is far more than a "minor revision". It is a new major version considering all the system changes, UI changes, API additions and updates, etc.

Not really. There are changes but Android is remarkably good at keeping newer version backwards compatible. I've been professionally developing for Android for 2 years and I can remember perhaps a couple of times I've needed special code to deal with different versions.

The real problem with fragmentation is different hardware device implementations (and bugs), and different hardware speeds. There aren't easy ways to work out what class of device you're instlaled on, and lowest-common-denominator programming slips in.

People focus on OS versions and I have no idea why, I suspect they're not actually Android developers.

Re:Why do you think..

[toadlife]

Now you can get an iPhone 3GS for free with a contract.

And how many new versions of iOS will that "new" 3GS be getting going into the future?

The same day new phones shipped with those OS versions, or some months later? Android 4.0 - Ice Cream Sandwich - is shipping on new phones now. Have you got it yet, or are you still on 2.3?

Still on 2.3. But again, you are trying to do a one to one comparison of Android, a commodity OS on a commodity platform to Apple.

The only half-way valid comparison you can make is the iPhone to Google Nexus series and those phones get updates in just as timely a fashion as iPhones.

Re:Why do you think..

[BasilBrush]

And how many new versions of iOS will that "new" 3GS be getting going into the future?

No idea. But clearly Apple has been phenomenally better than Android in delivering updates to phones. As long as new versions on iOS work within the memory and speed constraints of the 3GS, they'll get software updates.

But again, you are trying to do a one to one comparison of Android, a commodity OS on a commodity platform to Apple.

Yeah, I'm judging them in the same way. Not giving Android an easy ride because it can't keep up.

The only half-way valid comparison you can make is the iPhone to Google Nexus series and those phones get updates in just as timely a fashion as iPhones.

But they don't. Apple phones get an update the very same day as a phone with a new version comes out. The very same day. No Android phones do. The Galaxy Nexus came out a month ago - the previous Nexus - the Nexus S - only got Ice Cream Sandwich yesterday. A month late. And that's your very best case scenario for Android.

Re:Why do you think..

[BasilBrush]

Your semi-literacy is hard to read.

With pre-iOS 5 devices, new OS versions are auto-downloaded by iTunes and offered for installation the next time they connect to a PC/Mac and sync. Either those 3 iAds haven't been synced for a while, or the owners said no when offered.

From iOS 5 onwards they don't even need to connect to a computer. Updates are over the air.

heck, with the right instructions people could root their phones and install the latest version of android

So on the one hand your pointing out that people aren't doing auto-updating. But somehow you think they'll do do rooting, finding suitable builds (if only they were available) and manual installation. You haven't really thought it out.

Phone Vendors Don't Think Platform

[pdxer]

It seems to me that phone vendors have not changed their mindset from the pre-smartphone era. Back then, no one cared about OS or version. You got an integrated product and it never changed. Today, it feels like phone makers still think "we put it together and ship it - this idea of later changing or upgrading the software is kind of weird to us."

To them, a phone is complete and unchangeable one it leaves the factory. Alas for their mindset, consumers see phones as customizable, upgradeable devices. If they were $50 each, sure, just replace it, but at $500+ (even if it's stretched over two years), people are making a more significant investment and don't want to be left behind.

Re:Phone Vendors Don't Think Platform

[InsightIn140Bytes]

That is why you need someone running the platform. With iPhone there's Apple and with WP7 there's Microsoft. However, Google is just ignoring Android and thinking it works out just fine if they pass the control to phone vendors. Well, it doesn't. I doubt they will ever even realize this but continue making the same mistake again and again.

Re:Phone Vendors Don't Think Platform

[iluvcapra]

However, Google is just ignoring Android and thinking it works out just fine if they pass the control to phone vendors.

Google thought process: A Cupcake phone displays ads just as well as an ICS, and the phone vendors know more about selling phones than us, right? Who wants to go to all of the trouble of making individual users happy when making just Verizon happy will move 100,000 units at a time.

It's a lot more fun to make million dollar deals with the "adults" that Run The Mobile World, while sniping at the "marketing" and "fanboi-sie" of somebody like Apple or Microsoft for actually attempting to make a relationship with the retail end user.

Re:Phone Vendors Don't Think Platform

[JabberWokky]

If only they would buy a major phone vendor to lead by example. Somebody like Motorola.

Re:Phone Vendors Don't Think Platform

[roc97007]

Ok, good point. I think the issues are (a) smartphones are more of an investment than dumb phones, which have been relegated to beyond-free or burner status. Spending $300-$400 on a phone, you expect certain things to work, aaaand...

(b), we're still on the (tail end of the) steep end of the curve on the latest generation of smartphones. Remember all the hoopla over Froyo -- it was a must-have update, and some vendors damaged their reputations by stringing it out too far. As we get higher on the curve, I think we'll see a gradual return to handsets you can buy and use them for a reasonable useful time span without updates.

Re:Phone Vendors Don't Think Platform

[Belial6]

Hopefully, they will do that. I also hope that they price the phones high enough that other vendors can sell equivalent phones just a little cheaper. This way, if the other vendors fall into line, people will buy those phones because they are equivalent phones for a little less money. But, if the vendors screw up the software, people will buy Motorola because for an extra $20 or $30 dollars, they can get a much better phone that gets updates.

Google should shoot for 20% market share for Motorola.

Re:Phone Vendors Don't Think Platform

[jbolden]

Google doesn't make enough money to manage the platform. It just isn't possible for them to provide that level of service. The question is whether the carriers (who make better margins are Android phones) will cut off their nose to spite their face or realize they need to spend trivial amounts in aftercare to keep this product line viable.

Re:Phone Vendors Don't Think Platform

[jbolden]

Maybe... but it could be quite a while. Android has attracted the feature rich community. Without must have features that community is going to become price sensitive again very quickly.

Re:Phone Vendors Don't Think Platform

[garyebickford]

I bought a Palm Treo in early 2007. At last it's starting to do strange things - thinking buttons were pushed when they weren't, etc. But four and one-half years isn't too bad. Verizon has been trying to get me to upgrade for more than three years now. Perhaps with ICS, it's time.

Re:Phone Vendors Don't Think Platform

[roc97007]

I think you mean *new* feature rich. Eventually there will be more features than we can shake a stick at, and hopefully the releases will be further apart and more stable. But not now.

As a consumer of smartphones, I'm not opposed to price sensitivity. :-)

Re:Phone Vendors Don't Think Platform

[roc97007]

Understood. My first smartphone was a 600 in '03 or thereabouts, which I kept until it departed this mortal coil. I replaced it with a 680. As I recall, there were at least two firmware updates for the 600, and one for the 680, but in general there wasn't a lot of feature churn at the time (or need for it) so it wasn't an issue.

On the other hand, my daughter's Galaxy was sold to us with the stipulation that it would have certain features "any day now", and it was actually almost a year. The mistakes were (a) setting our expectations, (b) incessant delays, and (c) silence from the vendor on the issue. It was a different thing.

We will eventually, I think, get back to about one update a year that we're not looking forward to all that much.

Re:Phone Vendors Don't Think Platform

[mcrbids]

My phone isn't really "mine" while my company is paying for it. But as soon as the 3 years is up and I get a new one, you can be sure as anything it will be running cyanogenmod's latest and I'll have it hacked every way from Sunday.

My Bionic updated this morning`

[Tekfactory]

Still Android 2.3.4, just some crappy system Verizon version 5.5.893.XT75.Verizon.en.US

I was so hopeful.

Every phone I've ever had

[LunaticTippy]

All the phones I've owned, at least 10 of them have been obsolete before I had them. I don't have the expectation that my phone has the latest OS. I am currently using a work-issued blackberry curve 9300. People chuckle at it, but it is functional enough I don't spring for a second phone.

I was hoping Google would be good about backwards-compatible updates but I am not surprised. Hardware changes so much it seems hard to make the OS compatible across all platforms. I don't get why people are so worked up about it. Your phone does what it does when you were all excited about it a few months ago, what's the big deal?

Re:Every phone I've ever had

[RogerWilco]

Two reasons:

1) Smartphones are defined by what apps they run. If you can't run the current, or at least a recent OS, then chances are you can't run any of the newer apps as well.
2) Apple has no problem doing it. My 2.5 years old iPhone 3GS is running the latest OS.

Re:Every phone I've ever had

[walterbyrd]

But your 3GS won't run Siri will it? So it's not exactly up to date, is it?

Re:Every phone I've ever had

[PickyH3D]

Using the phrase "Siri is a game changer" in a reason why fragmentation on Android is an issue not faced by iOS is amusing, at best.

Apple took Siri support away from the earlier iPhone when the iPhone 4S was launched simply because they could. It's an arbitrary, software-only limitation that prevents Siri from running on older hardware. Siri offloads the hard work onto Apple's servers, and not the phone, which is why the phone never would be the issue. It is forced fragmentation that Apple will supposedly release to their older line up once it removes the beta tag. They were also supposedly going to open up FaceTime as an open standard, enabling other phones and computers to interact with the protocol, so I would not expect that to actually come true.

Android is on the big stage right now with the lion share of sales ranging from wannabe-smartphones to the highend, but it is going to fail before it can fix itself if they do not change their act soon. Literally everyone that I know that owns an Android phone is fed up with something pretty big about the phone: battery life, speed, complexity, and a lack of supported updates. This only serves to send people to iOS, and it helps get Windows Phone some looks that it otherwise would never have gotten.

Re:Every phone I've ever had

[w0mprat]

All the phones I've owned, at least 10 of them have been obsolete before I had them. I don't have the expectation that my phone has the latest OS. I am currently using a work-issued blackberry curve 9300. People chuckle at it, but it is functional enough I don't spring for a second phone. I was hoping Google would be good about backwards-compatible updates but I am not surprised. Hardware changes so much it seems hard to make the OS compatible across all platforms. I don't get why people are so worked up about it. Your phone does what it does when you were all excited about it a few months ago, what's the big deal?

Dare I say, we're all too obsessed with keeping up the latest and greatest we miss that what we have right now is probably just fine for our needs. Unless money is no object (how realistic is that in a recession) there really isn't much need to upgrade as soon as the next big thing is available in a few months.

I remember an era when I'd only consider buying a new cellphone once every two years. I could easily upgrade my android phone to whatever is the top phone every 4-5 months, but that's just silly.

IMHO the pace of Android updates is just fine. The platform is making terrific progress, but the individual doesn't necessarily need to ride the bleeding edge.

Re:Every phone I've ever had

[LunaticTippy]

It's sort of like the way I view computers. I never have the latest rig that can run the latest games at max framerate. I have a few-year-old machine that does everything I want. Same way with phones. I can use GPS navigation, most of the interwebs, and a pile of apps on my elderberry. I don't care that it isn't the latest OS and can't run everything. It does all it did when it was new, and a lot of stuff released since then, so I am happy.

My girlfriend has an Android touchscreen something-or-other from a year ago and it is great. If I lose the work phone due to job change or something I will probably get a cheap Android. I don't care what version of the OS it runs, there are way more apps than anyone could ever use.

Re:Every phone I've ever had

[Belial6]

My 3GS keeps telling me that the apps I try to download are not compatible with my phone.

Re:Every phone I've ever had

[Belial6]

I am seeing the exact opposite. More and more people I know are moving away from the iPhone and going towards Android. I think that Siri is a bit of a game changer. Ever since it has been released, frequently when I ask my phone for directions, or do a voice search, people with iPhones start tapping each other on the shoulder and pointing out that I am talking to my phone. They then ask me if it is an iPhone 4S. When I tell them that it is an Android phone, and it has had voice capabilities since version 1.6, other Android users chime in that they have been using it for a long time also. That is when you see the gears begin to turn in the iPhone users minds.

Siri has been highlighting that Apple has been playing an "Emperor's New Cloths" game for some time now.

Re:Every phone I've ever had

[jbolden]

It will run Siri. Apple just doesn't offer Siri for the 3GS. It is included in 4S only.

Re:Every phone I've ever had

[jbolden]

IMHO Microsoft is going to be going after the BlackBerry market, enterprise users. That's a natural market for Microsoft.
Android might end up going after the JavaVM market, the phone OS that handset makers can start with for free but with a wider range of apps. This becomes the majority phone.
Apple gets the premium market.

Blackberry moves down to feature phones where awesome texting, IMing... plus so/so smart phone features in an inexpensive phone is good.

I don't see that as bad for anyone.

Re:Every phone I've ever had

[thegarbz]

By that logic Samsung Galaxy owners don't need the Ice Cream Sandwich update because ICS works on the phone and the manufacturer just chooses not to publish a release.

Re:Every phone I've ever had

[jbolden]

ICS is free, Siri is not and has never been even prior to Apple owning it.

Re:Every phone I've ever had

[thegarbz]

How you can seriously claim that when every Android related bitch thread on this site in the past week has been about complaints that the Carriers are holding up releases is completely beyond me. I mean I assume you read slashdot given that you are here and all, but ICS definitely is not "free" by the definition of any end users can install it. Heck "anti-free" would probably be a more appropriate term seeing how it's released free upstream but users can't install it even if they wanted to pay for it.

Re:Every phone I've ever had

[jbolden]

I think you are misunderstanding...

Siri was a paid service with cost software when it existed for the 3GS & 4.
Apple bought Siri but continued to charge.
Apple removed paid Siri but gave it away for 4S customers.
There exist hacks enabling Siri to work on 3GS and 4 and they work fine.

I'd say that evidence is fully consistent with Siri not being a free product but rather a commercial product that Apple is bundling in with their 4S.

That is a different situation then free software not being made available. I that in either case the end user isn't getting a service, but I think it is fair to note that the similarity ends there and the simile you are making breaks down.

Re:Every phone I've ever had

[PickyH3D]

Just as amusing is that all Windows Phones have supported voice to text from the beginning as well, although not for texting as it has since Mango's release.

The unfortunate reality is that non-technical people cannot connect the dots and realize that once the phone can support sending your voice to a server to be interpreted, then it is only a matter of updating the server to better handle your request, with only minor changes necessary for a phone-side API to take advantage of commands (e.g., telling your phone to set an alarm hopefully tells the Alarm app to do it rather than including custom logic for it to do itself).

I had actually forgotten that part. Only the iPhone 4S gets voice to text for texting purposes as well, which Android has supported for a long time and Windows Phone 7 supported in Mango, with most other relevant applications having support at release (e.g., Search). For Apple, it's semi-legitimate under the same guise as not releasing Siri (beta testing and, more importantly, infrastructure), but I just do not buy it. The only way to convince me that Apple is not simply screwing the old-phone users is for Apple to enable it for those phones. Anything shy of release, or a release date is just wishful thinking at this point because Apple has too strong of a track record for not providing support after dropping it; after all, there is no incentive.

not happy

[roc97007]

... but not surprised.

Re:not surprising.

[InsightIn140Bytes]

Even Microsoft does better job regarding Windows Phone 7 than Google with Android. They have by far updated all of their old phones. In fact, they demand from manufacturers that they update. Manufacturers are only allowed to skip one update. If they skip and next one comes, they are required to provide that update to users. That is how it should work, not unlike how Google runs things.

Another iPhone

[RogerWilco]

And this is the main reason why my next smartphone will be another iPhone. I have a bit of lock-in because of my existing apps, but that's less than $100, so I would not mind switching to something more free. Currently I'm still on my 2.5 years old iPhone 3GS, for as least as long as it still gets updates and the battery is good.

Stories like this give me very little in Android, Google might lose to Microsoft what it gained the last couple of years very quickly.

Re:Another iPhone

[geoffrobinson]

We're just sheep apparently. Easily led from phone to phone.

Re:Another iPhone

[mrops]

People are stupid. They compare any android device to iPhone. If you really want an alternative, stick to the Nexus series. I have had Nexus one and just upgraded to Galaxy Nexus. Carriers have no control, they are not even allowed to lock it. Google is in complete control. Don't go with any other Android phone, stick to Nexus.

Re:Another iPhone

[JabberWokky]

I don't know... the lousy Apple III bug with the chips popping out is why I don't buy Apple stuff like the iPhone. I mean, I always judge a buying decision on the worst example within a large class of products, just like you.

Psst... Android isn't a phone, it's an OS available on many products from many companies. Plenty of Android phones are regularly updated and have good hardware. This is about the market of all Android phones, and as you tend to buy *one* phone, rather than the entire market, it doesn't actually apply to any specific individual, but rather the marketplace as a whole.

Re:Another iPhone

[stephanruby]

Dear iPhone user,
I'm afraid your update to 4G is already two years late and it's still nowhere in sight.
Good luck with that.

Re:Another iPhone

[jo42]

4G

How's the battery life on your Hemorrhoid device with '4G'?

Re:Another iPhone

[roc97007]

While the battery is good? I don't understand. I swapped out the battery in my Droid X just this morning. I keep two, one on the charger and one in the phone.

Oh, wait...

Re:Another iPhone

[roc97007]

Mod JabberWokky Insightful.

Re:Another iPhone

[Rich0]

If you really want an alternative, stick to the Nexus series. I have had Nexus one and just upgraded to Galaxy Nexus.

You mean the Nexus One that received what is likely to be its last update one year and two months after they stopped selling it, and only one year and six months after it was first announced? That is the phone that is already one major version behind the current release?

The Nexus One is the longest-supported Android phone to date (certainly it received better support than the ADP which was the previous Google-branded phone and it stopped getting updates before they even stopped selling it). However, I'd hardly hold it up as an example of long-term commitment. I'll have to see what the Nexus S updates look like a year from today - I won't be holding my breath.

The guy you responded to was talking about updates 2.5 years after buying the phone. No android phone has gotten an official update 2.5 years after the phone was even publicly announced, let alone discontinued.

Re:Another iPhone

[Belial6]

My iPhone 3GS is not running the most current version of iOS. Siri is part of the OS. My phone does not have it. Just incrementing the number does not make it an upgrade. Sending out half of an upgrade does not make it an upgrade.

Re:Another iPhone

[Belial6]

My Android T-Mobile G2 lasts longer than my 3GS ever has. So, like all smart phones the battery life is crap, but there are no smartphones with good battery life.

Re:Another iPhone

[jbolden]

Nexus often has so/so hardware. Samsung, Motorolla.... might not be as good at OSes but they are better at the hardware side.

Re:Another iPhone

[jbolden]

The only feature I want from Verizon 4G is talk plus text, and I do really want that. 3G is plenty fast in terms of data delivery.

Re:Another iPhone

[gl4ss]

as long as you took a vanilla nexus and not verizon nexus...........

Re:Another iPhone

[Anonymous Coward]

WAKE UP SHEEPLE!! android fragmentation is an inside job!

Re:Another iPhone

[nazsco]

Lies and lies.

nexus one STILL have software issue (half users can't use touch screen if the battery is charging, unless you lock/unlock the phone at some point)

nexus is not better than the others.

what you are advertising is:
- spend $700 every YEAR on a phone
- plus another $90/mo for the contract.

yeah, i can see why you are very clever with your mountain of obsolete nexus phones.

tl;dr
hur dur i'm not affected by phones getting obsolete because i have the new nexus every year.

Re:Another iPhone

[shutdown -p now]

And yet, a Nexus One purchased on the date of release is still much more capable today than any iPhone purchased at the same date.

Re:Another iPhone

[vakuona]

It is running the latest update.

Re:Another iPhone

[thegarbz]

2.5 years? I don't know why people are so hell bent on a long term commitment. If your phone is 2 years old you're using an ancient brick and probably wouldn't be welcome in geek circles anyway. Hand in your card.

My contractual length with the provider is 2 years. From about 1.5 years the provider starts offering me the latest and greatest phone in the hope that I sign up for another 2 years and won't leave them when my contract expires. This is of no extra cost to me. On the flip side if I don't take up their offer I'm forgoing the carrier subsidy for 6 months on an old phone which I could have upgraded for no fuss.

I don't fret about not having the latest update since my phone is more than a year old already and I'm due to get a new on in 2 months time. One way or the other I'll be on a new phone before Samsung even gets to rolling out the ICS update for Galaxy S (assuming they do it, the Cyanogenmod team will).

Re:Another iPhone

[Belial6]

Well, if you don't have so supply the whole new OS, then all the Android manufacturers have to do is send out an update that print 4.0 on the Android version and they are up to day. Problem solved.

Re:Another iPhone

[Rich0]

Hey, I'll accept that as a chink in the iPhone's record. However, they're still WAY ahead right now in terms of long-term support. A year after they stopped selling the ADP I bet you couldn't run the free Google Navigate app on it (it never got past Donut, and I think Navigate required Elcair).

Don't get me wrong, I still prefer Android. However, I have no illusions about its weaknesses.

Re:Another iPhone

[Rich0]

Great to hear - glad one phone made it. Better update the wikipedia page as it suggests that it is still stuck on 2.2. You did mean that they updated it to Gingerbread, right?

Re:Another iPhone

[Rich0]

2.5 years? I don't know why people are so hell bent on a long term commitment. If your phone is 2 years old you're using an ancient brick and probably wouldn't be welcome in geek circles anyway. Hand in your card.

Perhaps I buy phones because they're useful - and not to impress other geeks? In any case, a cell phone contract is typically two years. Sure, you might be able to get a deal before then, but only with your current carrier (well, other carriers will offer you a deal, but you won't get out of any ETFs). Plus, it is two years from when you buy the phone, not two years from when the phone was first sold - so if they sell the phone for six months they should support it for 2.5 years from introduction.

I suspect that we'd see this practice change if people bothered to create Android worms (especially ones that really aimed to disrupt the mobile network - or better still jam as much spectrum as they can with the radio). Suddenly not offering security patches for two years would be something carriers wouldn't be too eager to do.

Re:Another iPhone

[Belial6]

I have no illusions either. If you want longer support on Android, the other poster's recommendation to stick with Nexus phones is the best choice. I don't know what phone ADP is, but I was able to run Google Navigate on the MyTouch which is the second Android phone ever released.

Right now, the phones are improving so fast long term support on most phones is just not happening. The iPhone had over a year head start on Android, and we have seen major upgrades at a breakneck speed. At this point, depending on who you ask, Android has caught up (is behind or is ahead) of iPhone. So, I think we are at a turning point. If Android continues to improve at the rate it has, it is going to leave iOS in the dust, but that will likely mean continuing the shorter support cycles. How this plays out relies on many unanswered questions.

Will people rebel against the lack of updates?
Will Apple follow the lead and reduce their support cycle?
Are current phones 'good enough' that new updates don't matter to people?
Will economies of scale make Apple appear too expensive for what you get?
Will the iPhone 5 be so far ahead of everything else that it changes the game?
Will Android and iPhone find an equilibrium that keeps them both running?
Will everyone decide to move to Windows Mobile? (OK, that might be going too far)

Certainly there are a lot of question about what the next couple of years will hold for both platforms, and I don't think that past performance is going to be a reliable indication for future actions on either platform going forward in regards to upgrade cycles.

Re:Another iPhone

[Rich0]

I don't know what phone ADP is, but I was able to run Google Navigate on the MyTouch which is the second Android phone ever released.

The MyTouch was upgraded to Froyo I think - at least that's what Wikipedia says. The G1 and ADP never got past 1.6.

The ADP and the G1 were the first android phones. They were hardware-identical - the difference was that T-Mobile sold the G1 locked-down, and Google sold the ADP direct with an unlocked HBOOT. The jailbreaking instructions for the G1 typically involved flashing the ADP HBOOT onto the G1 - that's what the "engineering bootloader" was.

People tend not to count the ADP for whatever reason, but I'd consider it the first "Nexus" phone though it didn't use the name. It was sold direct by Google and was intended to be the platform showcase. It was "pure Google" as they say today.

In any case, I agree that the Nexus line is your best bet - I just can't say that we've arrived yet in terms of long-term support. Again, from my perspective I care more that I can jailbreak the phone and that lots of other FOSS-types buy it - that generally assures me of longer-term support. On the other hand, the bigger-name android developers get so many donations these days that they don't really have incentive to stick with older phones the way they had to with the G1. When you're given money for new phones every other month it is hard to give much attention to the phone you got a year ago.

Re:Another iPhone

[Belial6]

Ahhh yes. I just needed a refresher. I always counted the ADP. I just counted it as a G1.

Re:Another iPhone

[JabberWokky]

Though you are buying one phone, you are choosing from a sea of phones and carriers. A lot of how the choice works out comes down to luck.

That is somewhat true, but it's also true for cars and laptops for many people. It's "whatever Best Buy has", or whichever car lot they happen to visit and what they are trying to move. An informed consumer can choose a phone carefully, weighing their choices. That does not mean, of course, that you'll get everything you want: the original point was a single feature: OS upgrades. That can be found. As to if anybody offers the exact feature set you want... well, that's not always available. But nor is it available for vehicles or laptops either.

Personally, my killer feature is a physical qwerty keyboard. My wife also really likes them (so she can ssh into her computing cluster). That limits our options greatly, the same as if we needed four wheel drive. That said, there are few things better documented these days than cars, phones and laptops, so you cn easily do the research to find what you want.

Re:Another iPhone

[JabberWokky]

So you're basing your buying consideration on a bad example that occurred close to 20 years ago? Insanity.

You do understand that it's an illustration of a point? I am typing this (and the other comment) on a Macbook Pro. My wife is downstairs using my iPad to look at the holiday recipes she's cooking. It's a bad idea to base your buying decisions on one bad experience... which what the parent post had said.

Impacting my purchasing decisions

[suresk]

I'm replacing my Droid Incredible next month, and this very issue is steering me towards an iPhone 4S even though I'm generally happy with other aspects of Android.

If I'm locked into a contract for 2 years for a phone, I don't think it's incredibly unreasonable to expect updates (especially ones that relate to security, stability, or performance) for at least 18 months.

Re:Impacting my purchasing decisions

[stephanruby]

I'm replacing my Droid Incredible next month, and this very issue is steering me towards an iPhone 4S...

Yeah, good luck getting the update to 4G on iPhone, it's already two years late and counting.

Re:Impacting my purchasing decisions

[Rich0]

Perhaps because they didn't support the Nexus One for 18 months, so what makes anybody think the Galaxy Nexus will fare better?

Re:Impacting my purchasing decisions

[suresk]

I'm not sure how this is relevant - I'd never buy a 3G phone and expect a software upgrade to 4G. I do, however, think an update to the OS is a reasonable expectation.

Re:Impacting my purchasing decisions

[boilednut]

Maybe 18 months is longer for you than it is for me but...

1/5/2010 Nexus One released
9/24/2011 Nexus One updated to Android 2.3.6

Re:Impacting my purchasing decisions

[ducomputergeek]

My friends who bought Droid phones about 2 years ago as early adopters (about a dozen I know) have all switched to the iPhone. The none-techie ones had the main reason being is the iPhone is what they wanted 2 years ago, only they wanted Verizon instead of AT&T which wasn't an option. While they were "happy" with the Android phone it still wasn't what the wanted.

The techie friends have come to realize that Android just isn't being supported like they thought it would with the latest and greatest available to all. And while some found it fun to hack a while, the bottom line is they found that they didn't want to spend their time messing with their phone. They just wanted it to work.

Now with sprint as a carrier I imagine the next batch will be the same. I've known one or two that have opted to go from iPhone to Android phones, but one of them swears Android will dominate the phone land scape just like he predicted Gentoo would rule the Linux landscape about 8 years ago...

Re:Impacting my purchasing decisions

[stephanruby]

I get what you're saying. I just find it ironic that you'd be downgrading to an iPhone all because you're not getting all the latest upgrades/updates on Android.

You remind me of someone who was complaining about not getting Android 2.3.x when he already was on 2.2.x and Android 2.3 wasn't going to offer him any feature that he was actually going to use, and yet, he was still upset that his phone wasn't getting that mystical 2.3 update for some reason.

Re:Impacting my purchasing decisions

[Rich0]

Hmm, for some reason I had the release date as March. So, they just barely eeked out 18 months from the release date, though not 18 months from the date the last one was sold (which I'd argue should be the benchmark).

Re:Impacting my purchasing decisions

[suresk]

There's nothing ironic at all about it. You don't get to pick out one feature that iPhone has over Android, and then declare that because of that feature a move to the iOS platform is a "downgrade".

Actually, for my usage, it isn't even clear that going from 3g to 4g would be an upgrade. I realize everyone is different, but while I use my phone a lot, I don't do a lot of things that require huge amounts of bandwidth. Faster is faster, but 4g also has a huge downside in that it eats up battery life. The marginal benefit I'd derive from the increased bandwidth probably wouldn't outweigh the marginal cost in battery life.

There are actually a lot of things I like about the Galaxy Nexus over the iPhone 4S, but 4g isn't a significant one.

Also, there are a lot of good reasons for wanting to be up on the latest version of an OS beyond just wanting the newest shiny thing - not the least of which being that the current situation exacerbates the problem of fragmentation in the Android ecosystem. I guess I don't understand why you're trying to defend Google's update strategy (or lack thereof) - there's really nothing good about the current situation.

Re:Impacting my purchasing decisions

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an uninformed idiot.

2.2(Froyo) and 2.3(Gingerbread) are a night and day difference in every way possible.

-The battery management issues went from abysmal to acceptable between these two kernel versions.
-The user interface is way cleaner and better thought out.
-Entire genres of the Android Market are unavailable when you have an out of date version of the kernel because app developers like myself actually use the features released in new SDK APIs(Google doesn't write APIs for fun, they do it because they include extremely useful and desirable feature & functionality improvements). Specifically Gingerbread updated the "SensorManager" Class to include updated Sensor Fusion functions which combine accelerometer, compass, and gyroscope sensor data to create an Inertial Navigation System. Froyo has the technology necessary for a graduate student to build a satelite. Gingerbread has the technology necessary for a middle schooler to build a satellite. 1 API update changed technology accessibility by an entire decade of education. This doesn't even touch on the difference in development hours required for the graduate student before and after.

I just had to buy a new Samsung Phone off of eBay because Motorola has their head up their ass. I can root the Epic 4G and install any kernel version I fancy. Motorola's locked bootloader (aka eFuse) makes this impossible and means I'm constantly having to develop apps with 1 hand tied behind my back guaranteeing that I fail to keep pace with the competition.

As an example, Google released the "Google API Level 10"(Android 2.3.4) which updated the USB adapter to add functionality for the new "Google ADK". This update separates the world of Android phones in to TWO TYPES:
-Those with 2.3.4 and up have Arduino level ease of interfacing to hardware like relays, potentiometers, oscilloscopes, servo motors etc.
-Those with 2.3.3 and below which cannot do this without doing something hokey like Bluetooth or the Sparkfun IOIO.

The first type is in an entirely different league of phone from the second.

In conclusion, every Android Update is a critical update and should be available in hours, not years.

Re:Impacting my purchasing decisions

[stephanruby]

You're an uninformed idiot.

Thanks, this post looks promising.

2.2(Froyo) and 2.3(Gingerbread) are a night and day difference in every way possible.

-The battery management issues went from abysmal to acceptable between these two kernel versions.

Citation please. From abysmal to acceptable is not a measurement I can grok.

-The user interface is way cleaner and better thought out.

The circular lock screen looks better. I admit. Is that all?

-Entire genres of the Android Market are unavailable when you have an out of date version of the kernel because app developers like myself actually use the features released in new SDK APIs.

So you're telling me that you wrote off something like 99% of the Android handsets as soon as that new SDK came out? You should have waited until now at the very least.

Specifically Gingerbread updated the "SensorManager" Class to include updated Sensor Fusion functions which combine accelerometer, compass, and gyroscope sensor data to create an Inertial Navigation System. Froyo has the technology necessary for a graduate student to build a satelite. Gingerbread has the technology necessary for a middle schooler to build a satellite. 1 API update changed technology accessibility by an entire decade of education. This doesn't even touch on the difference in development hours required for the graduate student before and after.

I just had to buy a new Samsung Phone off of eBay because Motorola has their head up their ass. I can root the Epic 4G and install any kernel version I fancy. Motorola's locked bootloader (aka eFuse) makes this impossible and means I'm constantly having to develop apps with 1 hand tied behind my back guaranteeing that I fail to keep pace with the competition.

As an example, Google released the "Google API Level 10"(Android 2.3.4) which updated the USB adapter to add functionality for the new "Google ADK". This update separates the world of Android phones in to TWO TYPES:
-Those with 2.3.4 and up have Arduino level ease of interfacing to hardware like relays, potentiometers, oscilloscopes, servo motors etc.
-Those with 2.3.3 and below which cannot do this without doing something hokey like Bluetooth or the Sparkfun IOIO.

The first type is in an entirely different league of phone from the second.

In conclusion, every Android Update is a critical update and should be available in hours, not years.

Of course, a developer should have the latest SDK on one of his phones, but I was speaking about my friend who is not a developer. My friend doesn't have an ADK and his one-year old phone certainly didn't have a gyroscope chip in it yet. If anything, you've just made my original point. What's the point of crying foul about upgrading software to hardware he doesn't have in the first place?

also dead: the IBM PC

[decora]

i mean, there are just so many clones! who knows what bus you use, is it ISA? EISA? PCI? what kind of memory does it use, EMS or XMS? which version of DOS do you want, 4 or 5? what about Windows -- windows 3 or WFW?

there are just too many choices, too many options. the X86 based PC platform is dead. and so is the x86 processor.

this is 1986 for crying out loud. people want stuff that is easy to use. not junk that you have to fiddle around with.

Re:also dead: the IBM PC

[fightinfilipino]

some users, generally the more technically minded, do appreciate being able to fiddle around with some things. that's the plus side to Android. the minus side is, yeah, we're basically in 1986 now.

coincidentally, i'd like someone to fiddle with my junk, but slashdot might be the wrong site for that.

Re:also dead: the IBM PC

[Lunix Nutcase]

The point has to do with broken promises of OS updates not hardware variation.

Re:also dead: the IBM PC

[betterunixthanunix]

Thus demonstrating one of the most important differences between a PC and a smartphone: you can upgrade your PC's OS on your own, without having to buy a new PC, without having to wait for your PC or OS vendor to do it for you.

Re:also dead: the IBM PC

[sootman]

Yeah, for that you have to look to Microsoft, who originally promised to run NT on x86, Alpha, MIPS, and PowerPC. :-)

Re:also dead: the IBM PC

[lexman098]

You can upgrade your smartphone OS on your own as well. You can buy the smartphone outside of a contract too, just like a PC. The only requirement to avoid these broken promises is a little foresight.

Re:also dead: the IBM PC

[jbolden]

Funny. And those sorts of problems were a bit later then 1986. As an aside, that's more like 1990. 1986 the issue was things like BIOS incompatibility.

Re:also dead: the IBM PC

[jbolden]

NT did run on Alpha. It was terrific on Alpha. But the sales of the Dec workstation with NT were terrible and...

As for MIPS, MIPS was dying by that point. SGI ported to NT/x86. As for PowerPC... hmmm not sure what happened there.

Re:also dead: the IBM PC

[jbolden]

Oh OK so they even delivered on the PowerPC. 3.51 counts in my book, that was the NT kernel which means they could have done more if their was interest. OK so GP's point is total BS. Thank you for the info.

Re:also dead: the IBM PC

[NuShrike]

Unless you have a laptop, specifically a Sony. They only do driver updates during the hardware development. Then you're SOL the moment they start selling the hardware. Just the way Carriers like it.

CyanogenMod Fanboy

[Kamiza Ikioi]

Screw their pledge, just let us root our phones easily. CyanogenMod has treated me better than any carrier or handset maker, and it will never ever come with Carrier IQ: http://www.cyanogenmod.com/blog/cyanogenmod-will-never-have-carrier-iq

They plan Ice Cream Sandwich via CM9 for almost any CM7 (current version of CM) compatible phone they already support, except for really old models like the G1.

Re:CyanogenMod Fanboy

[CanHasDIY]

Screw their pledge, just let us root our phones easily.

This.

What burns my ass is how phone makers continually work to "secure" the devices they make against not criminals, but the people who actually purchase and own said devices.

Re:CyanogenMod Fanboy

[peppepz]

Well said.

My personal experience: HTC never released any update for my phone, which was running (a very buggy implementation of) Android 1.6. For half a year after the phone was released, they told us users that they were trying to port Eclair to the phone, and then they dropped any effort, saying that the phone hardware couldn't support it - coincidentally, they launched a new equivalent phone model natively running Froyo.

Then I decided to void my warranty and I installed CyanogeMod on my phone: now I'm running the latest version of Gingerbread, and it runs acceptably well, certainly much better than the buggy Donut rom that HTC had originally put on the phone.

A few hackers, in their spare time, with no documentation about the hardware, and without the software keys theoretically required to obtain full access to it, managed to do what the multinational corporation that designed the phone said was impossible to do. To me, this means that manufacturers do not want you to be able to upgrade your phone's software without buying new hardware for them. Hardware fragmentation, kernel drivers, processing power are just excuses they adduce. If Cyanogen can do it, so HTC/Samsung/Motorola could.

Re:CyanogenMod Fanboy

[LeDopore]

"A few hackers, in their spare time, with no documentation about the hardware, and without the software keys theoretically required to obtain full access to it, managed to do what the multinational corporation that designed the phone said was impossible to do. "

Point taken. However, you might be surprised at how little resourcefulness can be found in multinational corporations. The best talent doesn't always find its way there, and sometimes a small number of brilliant individuals can make progress staggeringly faster than a larger number of pretty-good engineers working 9-5 under corporate processes and restrictions.

Re:CyanogenMod Fanboy

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

That's really hasty. I think that htc doesn't give a flying biscuit about software support. If they were really interested in selling you new phones p, they wouldn't bother with Android. They'd pump out feature phones.

Re:CyanogenMod Fanboy

[peppepz]

But then they'd have to develop and maintain an Android-quality featurephone OS.

Re:CyanogenMod Fanboy

[paimin]

You are not the customer.

Re:CyanogenMod Fanboy

[stoborrobots]

http://f-droid.org/ is probably helpful - a "marketplace" for open source apps...

Re:Apple Troll SuperKendall's Alt Account

[bonch]

My favorite part of posting on Slashdot over the years has been getting accused of being other people by angry, anonymous neckbeards. The tally of other people I'm supposed to be at this point must number in the dozens.

To answer your question, I don't care enough about smartphone operating systems to post angry, anonymous messages about them. I do, however, care about the fact that Linux once had a non-trivial chance at gaining desktop marketshare and squandered it. You can't create a stable long-term platform while embracing chaos. It's incompatible.

Re:not surprising.

[InsightIn140Bytes]

Nokia is still the largest phone manufacturer on the planet. When they start coming out with more and more WP7 devices, that is going to change. Their devices are already great, and hardware is unlike any other manufacturer.

Re:not surprising.

[Merk42]

What happens if the manufacturer skips more than one update?

Re:Apple Troll SuperKendall's Alt Account

[Lunix Nutcase]

Owning 30% of the market while only selling two generation models at any one time is hardly a failure for Apple. Considering that there are dozens upon dozens of different Android models it's only natural they'd have more market share.

Planned obsolescence

[rzr]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence If you can understand French this video explains a bit more : http://rzr.online.fr/q/obsolete

Re:Google is malnourishing it's baby.

[somersault]

This has little to do with Google, the exception being for hand sets that Google made themselves. Would you blame MS if HP didn't release Win7 drivers for old printers for example?

Stick to Nexus

[mrops]

This is why I always recommend sticking to the google controlled nexus series. google has complete control, carriers or the manufacturers themselves can't even lock it. Its the reference platform for apps and to top it all off, updates come quick.

My Nexus one always had timely updates, it still competes with modern day non-nexus phones and iPhone wasn't even a competitor for what Nexus One offered.

Just upgraded to Galaxy Nexus and its is a good phone, real good.

Re:Stick to Nexus

[jjsimp]

Does the Galaxy Nexus have Touchwiz? I thought it was only a Nexus in name only.

Re:Stick to Nexus

[Rhywden]

It has a non-modified, i.e. carrier- and brand-modification-free, ICS installation. Other than the label Samsung on the back (along with the Google Logo), there's no other sign of this being a phone made by Samsung.

Re:Stick to Nexus

[Rich0]

Your Nexus One is obsolete - Google said it themselves and they won't be porting ICS. If you bought it under contract, then you are still under contract since it isn't even two years old. Google doesn't even support their own phones for two years - the other carriers are just far worse.

I think so far all the iPhones have been kept on the latest release at least two years after they are no longer sold, and usually about three years after the introduction date.

The benchmark should be that the phone runs the latest major revision of the OS two years after the last day that it is sold. That's when the last customer to buy one is eligible for a replacement.

Re:Stick to Nexus

[Belial6]

I am on T-Mobile. They don't have a locked in 2 year upgrade cycle. Instead of 'subsidizing' the phones, they show you what the phone payments are and give you an interest free loan on it. This way, if you want to upgrade sooner, you can pay off the remaining balance on your existing phone, and get a new loan on the next phone. You can also keep your existing phone and pay less each month.

"subsidized" phones are a scam, and should be made illegal.

Re:Stick to Nexus

[Joe U]

Now they force you into a 2 year contract and you still pay for your phone. It's just moving the numbers from subsidized to un-subsidized, you still pay the same amount each month.

Re:Stick to Nexus

[shutdown -p now]

The reason why Nexus One does not get ICS is because it has ridiculously small amount of internal memory, not enough to get ICS installed and still leave space for any third-party apps. It's not because update is being deliberately withheld from the device, as is the case with carriers.

Re:Stick to Nexus

[Belial6]

I was in there last week, and they were still showing the monthly cost for buying the phone. I am also not on a contract, as they definitely off monthly plans.

It is true that in the end the you pay the same amount if you upgrade at the two year mark. The thing is that by hiding the payments in the bill, it makes it difficult for many to see what they are actually paying for. This is bad. The other thing is that with other carriers, if you want to upgrade at 18 months, you can't without paying the full price of the new phone. So, you end up paying for a phone over the next two years that you have already paid for out of pocket.

So, in a best case scenario, "subsidized" phones cost the same. If you upgrade before or after the 2 year mark, you end up paying more. It is also deceptive billing. Thus, it is a scam and should be made illegal.

Re:Stick to Nexus

[Rich0]

Interesting - I haven't been in one of their stores for a month or two, but I'd love to see this arrangement continue.

I do agree that phone providers should be required by law to separate phone sales from service sales. To ensure they really are separate anybody should be allowed to come in and get the best advertised deal on either without buying the other - so if they advertise a phone for $1 plus $1/month for 2 years then I should be able to walk in and buy 50 unlocked phones at that rate and walk out.

By all means offer whatever deals you want on the service, or on the phones, but don't couple them.

Of course, I'd go about 10 steps further and clean up the whole cell phone industry - splitting out the natural monopoly components of the industry and regulating the living daylights out of them. For starters I wouldn't let anybody offering cell phone service own a tower, or form any kind of exclusive deal from anybody who owns a tower. Then I wouldn't let anybody own more than 35% of the spectrum on any piece of land, or any spectrum at all on more than 30000 mi^2 of land. Tower operators would relay packets from service providers to phones, offering the same rates to anybody they do business with. Since there would be at least 3 in any area pricing would be kept in check. Since deals aren't exclusive anybody could start a phone company by working out deals with the various operators, getting the same rate as ATT/etc. Congestion in any area would solve itself as those operators could charge more money, creating incentive for others to build more towers to get in on the action.

Operators could still offer what appears like a seamlessly vertically-integrated experience to the consumer, but pricing would be protected by the fact that nobody gets market power and barriers to entry are much lower.

Re:Stick to Nexus

[Rich0]

The reason why Nexus One does not get ICS is because it has ridiculously small amount of internal memory, not enough to get ICS installed and still leave space for any third-party apps. It's not because update is being deliberately withheld from the device, as is the case with carriers.

It was their choice to make the OS take so much space. Apple manages to keep updating their older phones despite what must be similar constraints. It is just a matter of priorities.

I'm sure in a few months you'll see Cyanogenmod releasing ICS for the N1 and getting it to work out fine. Plus, you can always run external apps from SD.

If you can get Froyo working on a G1 (it performs at least as well as the stock version of 1.6), I'm sure you can get ICS to work on an N1. You just have to care enough to make the effort.

Re:Stick to Nexus

[Belial6]

Sounds good to me.

Re:Stick to Nexus

[zlogic]

Nexus One was a nice phone, but still not perfect:
- After unlocking the bootloader, you can't lock it back. This may be useful if you've done playing with custom roms and want to sell the phone, or want to secure the phone. An unlocked bootloader allows someone with a USB cable to dump all the data without knowing the unlock pin or password.
- Gingerbread was released late, about two months after Nexus S.
- It has some preinstalled apps taking up space on the system partition - like Facebook and Twitter. These versions are usually outdated and if you install the update, the same app will be installed twice! Installing them on the /data partition with the possibility to remove them would be much more useful.
- Finally, as people already mentioned, it's not getting ICS.
In addition, the phone has serious limitations, such as a crappy digitizer (no pinch-rotate, onscreen joysticks cannot be on the same line) and too little flash memory so that mandatory updates for Market, Google Music and other system apps take up all the space.

Re:Google is malnourishing it's baby.

[InsightIn140Bytes]

Would you blame MS if HP didn't release Win7 drivers for old printers for example?

If you want to compare this situation to Microsoft, then yes, Microsoft actually mandates that carriers update their WP7 phones.

Re:Google is malnourishing it's baby.

[danbob999]

Even if Google mandated Verizon to update their Android phones, they couldn't do it unless the manufacturer sent them the code.

Re:not surprising.

[danbob999]

They already started, and it didn't change much.

Re:Google is malnourishing it's baby.

[roc97007]

> This has little to do with Google, the exception being for hand sets that Google made themselves. Would you blame MS if HP didn't release Win7 drivers for old printers for example?

That's a *great* question. I was in that situation -- upgraded recently to Win7 and found that my perfectly functional HP scanner wouldn't work at all, ever, on Win7. As a geek, I'm sure there are perfectly good reasons why XP drivers won't work on 7, but as a user it's beyond irritating.

But just on the off chance it's HP's fault, I gave away the scanner to someone who was going to buy an HP scanner (eliminating one sale) and bought an Epson scanner as a replacement (eliminating two sales). So there.

Pulled in too many directions

[erroneus]

To be clear: I am *NOT* an Apple fan. In fact, I won't own an iThing... well I have a Mac mini collecting dust but that's all.

Apple CONTROLS its phones. From the beginning, it used its exclusivity with AT&T as a means to assure that AT&T would let them (mostly) have their way with the user experience of the device. And since the variety of the devices are very limited, making updates to the OS of the device is a bit more simple and is user controlled through iTunes. (Can iThings even get OTA updates?)

Android manufacturers and the carriers are otherwise DOING IT WRONG. Between the two, they each blame the other for delays and these delays cause frustration for the users but also end up as additional new sales of new devices which is seemingly the only way to get "updates" these days if at all.

So why do the makers want to delay?

1. take developer time away from "new" things
2. encourage the sale of new devices

So why do carriers want to delay?

1. they want to keep shopping for new and creative ways to resell their customers by adding new bloatware and spying apps
2. encourage the sale of new devices and extended subscriber commitments

Of course they won't admit to any of these reasons but they should be obvious to anyone paying attention.

Re:Pulled in too many directions

[glitch0]

iThings can get OTA updates with the latest os version, iOS 5. But keep in mind that even though Apple releases updates for their older devices, they often disable many of the new features because of "performance" issues. But let's be honest, my jailbroken 3G doesn't run any slower with a custom background or lockscreen.

Re:Google is malnourishing it's baby.

[Goaway]

If Google mandated this, then Verizon would have to arrange their contracts with their suppliers so that they would get whatever code they need.

Re:Google is malnourishing it's baby.

[somersault]

Actually I wasn't comparing to MS (the point applies equally to OSX and Linux), I was talking about hardware manufacturers. Does your girlfriend get upset when you make everything about Microsoft and not her?

Except

[ThatsNotPudding]

Carriers have no control, they are not even allowed to lock [Galaxy Nexus]. Google is in complete control.

Um, Verizon blocked Google Wallet, as they are working on a propriety - and no doubt to be a crap and insecure - competing service.

Oh Wait two; the re-waitening

[SuperKendall]

Yes. Thats why Apple release Siri for older phones. Its because they dont want you to buy the latest iProduct.

No, that's because Siri is beta and they want to tune the thing with a reasonable amount of load before they push it out to all iOS5 owners.

I'm sure there's some degree of marketing behind the choice as well, but the fact is that it's a technically sound choice with a good reason behind it as long as Siri eventually makes it to all iOS5 owners.

I expect we'll see that mid-year, though it may not support the 3GS (that may lack the CPU to handle the audio encoding fast enough to get it to the server in a reasonable time).

Re:Oh Wait two; the re-waitening

[PickyH3D]

I expect we'll see that mid-year, though it may not support the 3GS (that may lack the CPU to handle the audio encoding fast enough to get it to the server in a reasonable time).

It handles it quite well in the FaceTime app while also encoding video, Voice Recorder app, and the [hacked] Siri app before it was pulled during the iPhone 4S launch. There is no reasonable, technical reason that any iPhone running iOS 5 should not support Siri. Encoding the audio is not a struggle on the iPhone 3GS, and the connection will be the same as the iPhone 4's (as opposed to the noticeably faster HSPA+ on AT&T's iPhone 4S, but not on Verizon's comparably slower iPhone 4S).

Anything less is just an excuse. Unfortunately, I do not think Apple will catch much flak when they neglect to add support to at least the 3GS for a similar reason that you claimed, but it will have no basis in reality if they do. After all, everyone quickly forgot about the promise to open up the FaceTime protocol too, but it will be interesting to see how they choose to handle iOS 6 and the iPhone 3GS still being sold at least through Spring of 2012.

I loved my iPhone 3GS, and my iPhone 4, but I recognize the writing on the wall. And that writing is starting to say, "no Siri," and that really bothers me for the same reasons that hardware-unrelated Android fragmentation does.

Re:Oh Wait two; the re-waitening

[jeffmeden]

Yes. Thats why Apple release Siri for older phones. Its because they dont want you to buy the latest iProduct.

No, that's because Siri is beta and they want to tune the thing with a reasonable amount of load before they push it out to all iOS5 owners.

Nothing says "small beta" like a national advertising campaign extolling the virtues of a phone that "you just talk to"... Or a launch event claiming it was a "Game changer" even though Android phones have had every bit of that technology (minus the self-reading SMS) already rolled into one app. Nope, that doesn't make sense, Apple would only do something with a sound technical basis, in the interest of the customers. I will be waiting with baited breath on the upcoming release of Siri for the iPhone 3GS (a phone still being sold as new and fully capable of running Siri).

Re:Oh Wait two; the re-waitening

[SuperKendall]

Nothing says "small beta" like a national advertising campaign extolling the virtues of a phone that "you just talk to"...

It is a small beta compared to making it available for 100 million more users day one. At this point they have probably sold 10 million+ 4s phones - an order of magnitude fewer requests probably makes a difference would it not?

Or a launch event claiming it was a "Game changer" even though Android phones have had every bit of that technology

You don't really understand what Siri does, do you? I has essentially what Android phones have for years, it was called Voice Control... and I never used it. Siri is much more usable, especially to the non technical user.

I will be waiting with baited breath on the upcoming release of Siri for the iPhone 3GS (a phone still being sold as new and fully capable of running Siri).

My guess is as stated mid year. I am pretty sure the iPhone 4 will get it, not as sure about the 3Gs though (given the reduced memory it has on tap). Just because it's new doesn't mean it can do everything.

Re:And yet...

[rivaldufus]

And my iPhone 3G that I bought just before the 3Gs came out? Not so much.

Re:Google is malnourishing it's baby.

[jmac_the_man]

There's a lot of people here on Slashdot that DO blame MS for that. And even more out in the real world. Old devices being incompatible with the new driver model is the biggest reason why Vista is seen as a bad word in the eyes of your average computer buyer.

just another me too post

[pbjones]

I can understand an update if your device costs real money, but I don't expect they will upgrade a $100 (or less) device, it's not commercial sense. They do zero upgrades because it keeps the device cost-competitive.

Re:Again, blame Google

[zeroshade]

Google is the new Microsoft creating a platform of ass and reaping billions for it in spite of themselves

hmm, except for the whole open source, free license, unlocked bootloaders, etc......

Re:Choice

[ninetyninebottles]

It's simple - if you want a (smart)phone that will have a regularly-updated OS and new features as they become available, then the only choice is the iPhone.

The iPhone will for a limited time. Or you could go with a Sony Android phone where your chances are about the same, since Sony has publicly committed to supporting their phones with the latest Android until the hardware no longer meets the requirements. (Sure Sony could go back on it, lose a lawsuit, and payout fines, but so could Apple really.) The other alternative is that, as a geek, you get one of the more open hardware sets and manage your own OS updates. But that is sort of beside the point. You're oversimplifying and Sony is as good of a bet as Apple (this from someone who thinks Sony is scum of the earth and would never buy a product from them).

Re:not surprising.

[HerculesMO]

You must live in the US.

When you're in EU/Asia, people don't care what the OS on the phone is. They want it to be a NOKIA.

Just like in the US where people want it to be an iPhone regardless of what it does or doesn't do.

Re:And yet...

[Rich0]

Can someone tell me if any Android-based phone of that age is still supported by any vendor?

There are none. Most receive their last update before they're even done selling them. The Nexus One was the record holder until it got its last update on Sep 24th of this year - 1.5 years after the original announcement date. If somebody knows of a phone supported longer I'm all ears, but so far Android's best case is far behind Apple's worst case.

I don't mind rooting my phone, but I don't consider the willingness of phone owners to maintain their own phones a substitute for proper vendor support.

Perhaps one of these days somebody will release a virus targeting Froyo and we can watch the world's mobile networks collapse...

Re:Google is malnourishing it's baby.

[jbolden]

Would you blame MS if HP didn't release Win7 drivers for old printers for example?

Microsoft thinks so. That is why they spend billions a year every year for over 20 years now getting old hardware to work with their OSes. And that means frequently writing drivers because hardware vendors are too lazy.

Re:Even more BS Google smearing

[suresk]

I'm a huge Google fan, but there are a lot of problems with the update strategy around Android. Being stuck on an older version has several problems:

1) Getting a new OS to take advantage of new functionality shouldn't be seen as a luxury - you don't go buy a new computer every time a new version of your OS comes out, and phones are expensive and powerful enough that the story should be similar for them.

2) You miss out on security, performance, and stability improvements.

3) You might not be able to use new apps, or at least take full advantage of them.

The secondary effect is actually much worse - having an ecosystem where phones are generally not updated very often makes the fragmentation problem considerably worse, which hinders developer investment into the platform.

I think this is a legitimate problem, not people out to get people or whining because they don't have the latest shiny thing.

can i hire you as my historical consultant

[decora]

jsut for mentioning VLB i think you should get a $500 christmas present

Possibly, but....

[SuperKendall]

It handles it quite well in the FaceTime app while also encoding video, Voice Recorder app, and the [hacked] Siri app before it was pulled during the iPhone 4S launch.

Possibly, but I think you discounting the possibility Apple is doing extra analysis client side before sending.

All of that is irrelevant to my main argument though, that the reason Siri is only on the 4s at the moment is they are managing server load before a wider rollout. Now they have a much better idea how much server processing power they really need to enable Siri for all iOS5 devices that can support it.

I loved my iPhone 3GS, and my iPhone 4, but I recognize the writing on the wall. And that writing is starting to say, "no Siri,"

Siri is too big a marketing draw for Apple to keep it off at least the iPhone 4 if possible. That is why I am pretty sure we'll see Siri rolled into wider iOS5 support in an update.

Siri is a brand new thing for Apple and I think we owe them a little leeway to get the thing worked out properly before we start declaring it's only market that is controlling Siri not being on the iPhone 4.

Re:Possibly, but....

[PickyH3D]

I am willing to give Apple some time to roll out its infrastructure to handle the strain of existing iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 users jumping onto Siri's servers, but past experience with vague promises from Apple tends to lead to vapor (again, I must reference the FaceTime protocol, which was incredibly disappointing to me).

But, I am not willing to accept that the iPhone 3GS cannot handle Siri. There is no voice recognition performed on the iPhone itself, except possibly checking for flat noise (nothing spoken, to avoid sending "nothing"), and anything that they could be checking with phone hardware will be minor. This has been proven by the jailbreaking community, similar to how they proved that the iPhone 3G could legitimately not handle multitasking in any way that would be acceptable to most users.

I agree that Siri is a huge marketing draw, but I am not sure that it is too big for Apple to keep it off of older phones. Apple was quite happy to market the iPhone 4S as the phone with Siri, and it definitely helps them sell that phone for more money even though teardowns suggest that the iPhone 4 cost's similar amounts to make. I don't fault them in any way for minimizing costs of their hardware, nor for the price of the phones, which are within the expected range compared to all other phones, but that is all to say that I would only be happily surprised if they choose to release Siri for older iOS 5 phones. I no longer expect it.

Re:And yet...

[jeffmeden]

...and iOS 5.0 supports my two-and-a-half year old iPhone 3GS.

Can someone tell me if any Android-based phone of that age is still supported by any vendor? Rail against Apple all you want, but the fact is that iPhones are supported longer than any Android-based phones. It's not iPhone buyers that are compelled to rush to the store to buy the newest model. It's Android-based phone users that are flavor-of-the-week... because they have no choice.

Do those "updates" perform equally well (Cough, iPhone 3) and are all of the features available (cough, Siri) on all of the platforms? If the answer to either question is no, then what is an upgrade besides a change to the text in the version number and perhaps some alternate windowdressing? The fact is that Apple makes it's customers happy by providing updates but the net effect is shockingly similar to what Android users experience: by and large a phone that does what they want it to do.

There is no substance unless there is a point to be made that leaving older devices to go without updates is somehow detrimental to their performance (which there may be, and that is where the argument should originate.) Playing the game of whose updates are more frequent or more visible is really just a pissing match.

Re:Choice

[bill_mcgonigle]

an Android phone is almost certainly going to be out of date very quickly and will almost certainly never be upgraded to the latest OS

if you're writing for a general audience, yes. If you're writing for Slashdotters, Cyanogenmod seems like a better recommendation.

Re:And yet...

[Belial6]

iOS on my 3GS is missing features, so I don't consider it a full upgrade.

MOD PARENT DOWN

[nazsco]

nexus and G phones, even the ones bought from google, are not immune to this.

They are as good as any other unlocked phone. that is, you pay $700 for the privilege of installing CyanogenMod

Re:And yet...

[jbolden]

Android is younger. The oldest Android phone is the G1 and that never got an OS update. The next oldest is the HTC mytouch (about 2 1/2 yers and) and that did get an update around Oct 2010, so it is still rather currentish. But I believe semi-officially that is a no for Ice Cream.

Re:And yet...

[dn15]

Do those "updates" perform equally well (Cough, iPhone 3) and are all of the features available (cough, Siri) on all of the platforms? If the answer to either question is no, then what is an upgrade besides a change to the text in the version number and perhaps some alternate windowdressing?

You could make the same argument of Windows, Mac or other operating systems. You may not get every new feature because the vendor set a minimum requirement that is too high. But even so that's just one or two missing features out of a plethora of other changes.

And don't forget the importance of changed/new APIs that may will eventually be required to actually run the latest apps. So I argue that would be beneficial to update even if you got zero new user-facing features.

Re:And yet...

[peppepz]

The 3GS is still being sold today, and it's still quite expensive as a phone. Of couse Apple have to support it.

what's confusing about home depot?

[Chirs]

At home depot it means that they'll meet (or beat) a lower price from another store on an identical item.

Re:what's confusing about home depot?

[fotoflojoe]

I'm such an ass-clown.
It's not "Guaranteed lowest prices", it's "Guaranteed low prices".
To me, the second phrase is subjective and non-deterministic. Hence, my initial claim: What the hell does that even mean?

actually, no

[Chirs]

It really wouldn't bloat things all that badly, it's just that the way the ARM arch is set up in the kernel source it's hard to build in support for many different types of hardware simultaneously. This is partly due to how wacky a lot of the embedded stuff is in order to save a few cents on the hardware.

Linus has actually complained about this and the manufacturers are slowly starting to agree on "standard" ways of doing things.

Verizon+Motorola Response

[yurik]

Just spent an hour on the phone with Verizon, speaking with

Verizon Wireless - Katie (refused to give either last name or her employee ID)
Katie had absolutely no information on the next version releases, nor did she have any way to send request for this to be implemented. She called Motorola support @ 800-734-5870 with me on the line:

@Motorola: Kent, employee #352669 created a case ref # 111217-009859
No information yet except for the models provided, supervisor refused to speak with me on the phone.

Apparently just a run-around, without any info. I'm thinking of switching to another carrier/manufacturer.

Re:Verizon+Motorola Response

[21mhz]

Unless you have a hard promise from Verizon and Motorola to provide you with timely updates, you acted as an assertive asshole on the helpdesk people for no good reason.
If they produce enough reports on people like you, it may make manufacturers and operators to rethink getting onto this Android bandwagon, if only to avoid your kind of public :-)

Re:Verizon+Motorola Response

[21mhz]

Oh, I RTFA and understood that you kinda have their promise. Still, don't be mean to customer support grunts. Negative publicity in blogs etc. does not hurt innocent underpaid workers, and works much better anyway.

Upgrade with what?

[thegarbz]

so that people can upgrade the OS themselves.

Upgrade it with what exactly? There are several phones on the market with a completely unlocked bootloader. Yet it took an immense amount of work from a significant group of hackers for various versions of Android to run acceptably on such unlocked phones. A phone is not a computer. You don't install an OS then go download drivers from the internet to make all you bits work. Each operating system for a phone need a specific driver set provided for that phone only because the OS can work. It's absurd to the point where Samsung Captivate kernels won't work on a Vibrant or the Galaxy S international even though from the outside they appear to be the same phone just for different vendors.

That is the fundamental problem, not locked down phones. It's also those drivers which the manufacturers are painfully slow to provide.

Re:Google is malnourishing it's baby.

[somersault]

Billions writing obscure drivers every year? Where do you get that idea?

Re:Apple Troll SuperKendall's Alt Account

[Deorus]

Google did not destroy Apple's place in the market. The big loser to Android was Symbian, which was phased out by Nokia and held the top spot when Android came out, not iOS.

You must also keep in mind that all iPhones are high-end smartphones whereas Android powers quite a number of budget devices.

Finally, Google has admitted that 2/3 of its mobile hits come from iOS devices. I think that means a lot more about the platforms' real success than their market shares, and let us not even get started with app store revenues!

No, it's really not

[manekineko2]

Considering that there are dozens upon dozens of different Android models it's only natural they'd have more market share.

There really is no logical causation between having many models and marketshare, no matter how often it is repeated.

If there were, everyone would just release more models.

There are many models of tablets that run non-Apple operating systems. Apple out sells them combined by 2-1.

Re:Google is malnourishing it's baby.

[perryizgr8]

printers should not need drivers. but hp wants to waste money on developing shit custom drivers.

Re:Apple Troll SuperKendall's Alt Account

[perryizgr8]

Google did not destroy Apple's place in the market. The big loser to Android was Symbian, which was phased out by Nokia and held the top spot when Android came out, not iOS.

You must also keep in mind that all iPhones are high-end smartphones whereas Android powers quite a number of budget devices.

this.
android wants to compete with iphone, but actually it is in the process of squeezing out low and mid tier cellphones. while iphone reigns supreme at the high end.

Re:Google is malnourishing it's baby.

[jbolden]

I didn't say billions writing drivers you did. There is a lot more, especially testing and coordination that goes into it. Also they go much deeper than drivers, they embed code to handle hardware deficiencies further up in the system. For example when CDRoms used to run as virtual SCSI many of the hardware manufacturers didn't have this virtual bus handle signaling properly. They actually had exceptions and special bypass code in the whole SCSI subsystem not just at the driver level.

Re:And yet...

[peppepz]

No, the 3GS costs £ 319 / € 399 : http://store.apple.com/uk/product/IPHONE3GS_8GB .

The fact that your carrier gives you a way to pay that money spread over 2 years of contract shouldn't matter when comparing its price to other phones (and you can get quality Android phones a for half that price).

Re:Google is malnourishing it's baby.

[cavreader]

If HP or any other hardware vendor actually want their products to sell they need to supply the drivers for the various OS's. Releasing new hardware and then waiting on someone else to build the drivers is not exactly a wise strategy.

Re:Choice

[NuShrike]

If you price that a full-blown "Nexus" device is about $700 every couple years ( just so you don't have to deal with Carrier crap, but Google's lacking hardware instead), are you really breaking even vs a contract iPhone?

Re:Google is malnourishing it's baby.

[somersault]

Yes, and the phone manufacturers do write drivers and sometimes special UI layes for their new handsets - but they are a bunch of greedy bastards and don't like providing free updates for existing handsets where they can get away with it.

lol android

[thetoadwarrior]

Android is pretty much becoming a joke. Phones are too expensive for half baked software from companies (including Google) who don't like supporting customers.

Re:not surprising.

[zlogic]

Windows Phone got updated, but still not as perfect as Apple's simultaneous updates for all phones.
Pre-7.5 updates were significantly delayed (for several months), 7.5 went much better. But still AT&T Samsung Focus rev1.4 got Mango about a month later and all AT&T Samsung Focus phones didn't get internet sharing - even though it's fully supported by hardware and can be enabled with a simple registry hack! Considering how seriously Windows Phone is behind iOS and Android feature-wise, Microsoft can't afford wasting time on catching up with their competitors.

But still this is much better than Google's "leave updates to manufacturers/carriers" approach.

My understanding...

[hitmark]

was that the predge only applied for 4.x and onwards. That is, 2.x devices where not covered by the pledge but 4.x not only had the pledge but also had technical changes done to make it easier to push updates.

But the main problem is using Apple products as the template for how things should be. This because Apple has the ability to work on something under cover until they are ready to release. In contrast the Google way is not that dissimilar from the Microsoft way regarding windows. How long has Microsoft been talking about Windows 8 now? That Google announce a new Android version do not mean the same as when Apple announce a new iOS version. It will be much healthier mentally if one think of Android in the same way as one do Windows. And i suspect the time between Android versions will grow longer as Google runs out of low handing fruits to include, much like the multiple years between Windows releases.

Re:Google is malnourishing it's baby.

[cavreader]

Why is anyone who operates a business to make a profit always referred to as "greedy bastards"? How do you know these greedy bastards "don't like" releasing updates? Has someone announced that as their official policy or are you just making shit up?

Re:Google is malnourishing it's baby.

[somersault]

You'll find out when you grow up and start working.

Re:Choice

[bill_mcgonigle]

If you price that a full-blown "Nexus" device is about $700 every couple years ( just so you don't have to deal with Carrier crap, but Google's lacking hardware instead), are you really breaking even vs a contract iPhone?

Yeah. I see on AT&T's site that if I want unlimited voice/text and a medium data plan that runs me $120 per month (with navigation which is somehow optional). It's $299 for the phone.

299+120*24 = $3179

If I buy a Nexus from Google for $700, load CM on it, and get an unlimited talk/text plan from PagePlus with a medium data plan, that's:

$700+55*24 = $2020

So, if you assume both are about equal, you're paying ~$500 a year in finance charges for the iPhone.

Re:Google is malnourishing it's baby.

[cavreader]

You comment is just as uninformed and idiotic as the first. I have 27 years experience in software development and system design. I have the right to express my opinions just like anyone else.