Slashdot Mirror
Google Trying New Strategy to Fix Fragmentation
CWmike writes "Google announced a new version of Android this week with some impressive new features, but it's unclear if it's done enough to solve a problem that has dogged its mobile OS: fragmentation. Even as it announced the imminent launch of Android 4.1, or Jelly Bean, the majority of users are still running Gingerbread, which is three major releases behind. According to Google's own figures, just 7 percent are running the current version, Ice Cream Sandwich, which launched last October. That means apps that tap into the latest innovations in the OS aren't available to most Android users. It also means developers, the lifeblood of the platform, are forced to test their apps across multiple devices and multiple versions of the OS. So when Google's Hugo Barra announced a Platform Developer Kit during the opening keynote at I/O this week, the news was greeted with applause. The PDK will provide Android phone makers with a preview version of upcoming Android releases, making it easier for them to get the latest software in their new phones. But is the PDK enough to secure for developers the single user experience for big numbers of Android users that developers crave? In a 'fireside chat' with the Android team, the packed house of developers had more questions about OS fragmentation than Google had answers."
...enabling users to upgrade the devices themselves? And actually forcing all carriers to open source everything?
If Google want to stop Android 'fragmenting', they need to apply some sort of 'compliance' to the Android name. If it's not running Android stock (no crap UI customisations, no carrier bloatware etc), then don't let it be called Android or mention the name in their advertising.
Also, change the name licensing conditions so OEM's and carriers can't sit on an O/S update for no sensible reason (real hardware limitations over the course of the life being a legit exception).
My laptop was a midrange one purchased in 2008.
It runs WinXP to Win8 (tried the DP) flawlessly, only RAM was upgraded to 4GB
Why cant phones have a similar level of stardardisation/compatibility across generations?
I should just be able to load a version of Android/Windows phone/Symbian onto a memory card, pop it into my phone and install it like I do on a PC
HTC and Samsung along with countless others IMO fail to push updates quickly enough. I only got my official OTA update for my Galaxy Note about 3 weeks ago. Does Google try to enforce some kind of release schedule across manufacturers?
The main problem with Android is that none of the companies that produce Android phones want you to upgrade your phone. They would prefer you bought a new one. Apple has a different plan as they acknowledge that as a happy customer you will buy their products again and they don't care which ones as long as you buy Apple. If you buy a HTC however they stop caring about you as soon as you walk out the door with your new phone. Most tech companies forget that customer service results in revenue and delude themselves into thinking that volume of crappy products results in revenue.
For my sins I watched the fireside chat yesterday, they seemed to field most questions OK, also the question that was mentioned, was one of many, and the guy answering it was the "glue" between the rest of them. He was also joking about quite a bit, it was all good natured banter. On a more serious note, for a free OS, and one that comes with hardware requirements, what do you expect the device manufacturers to do? The "great recession" was still extant last I noticed, and in developed markets smartphone adoption is reaching 50% so the low hanging fruit is already gone for the most part, it's just the mass market low end to poach, and gingerbread is still a damned fine OS IMO.
Out of interest, how do Ubuntu installs shape up over the same curve? Or even OSX, though the clientèle is a tad different :P
Not affiliated, etc.
The PDK does address an issue that Google shouldn't have made an issue to begin with - manufacturers actually getting some lead time. But it doesn't address the issue of why Gingerbread itself is still such a big chunk of the market.
ICS simply can't run on budget Android devices. The Android makers that are making money (Samsung) are targeting a much wider market then just the high end subsidized North American market. Samsung is able to turn a profit because they're spreading their costs over a much wider net with both mid range phones like the Ace line and a lot of super-low end ones (Y, Mini, Pocket) that compete directly with feature phones and in emerging markets. ICS is never going to run on those and Samsung and others won't try - they're still releasing brand new phones, 8 months later, running Gingerbread with no hope for an upgrade.
Android will continue to be 'fragmented' between Gingerbread and whatever the latest and greatest is for a long time, at least as long as the gulf exists between heavily carrier subsized phones in a few countries (allowing iPhones, Samsung Galaxy Ss and HTC One Xs to sell in any quantity) and full cost phones in other countries where (Gingerbread) Android's price point is the biggest selling point against more expensive smart phones and increasingly identically priced feature phones.
Fragmentation has been getting less and less of an issue for Android over time, it's a lot more complex than Apples presentations would have you believe.
The first issue is that a lot of features announced as part of new Android releases are actually new features of the apps, and those apps are often backported to old OS releases and released through the Play store. For instance, basically any feature added to Maps becomes available all the way back to at least Gingerbread, and I think also Froyo. Voice search, upgraded Gmail apps, upgraded YouTube apps, new versions of the Play app etc, all backported. Apple tends to announce new app features as part of new iOS releases, and then remove them from the "upgrade" distributed to old devices. Therefore you can be running a new iOS or an old Android yet have the same or better features!
So what about from a developer perspective? Well, here too the issue is more complicated than it looks. A lot of the new APIs that are "pure software" have also been backported through compatibility libraries. These are drop-in libraries you include with your app download that provide the API on older phones that don't have them natively. The APIs that remain are often hardware oriented and wouldn't be available on older iPhones either.
The final issue is upgrades that aren't. I used to think that OS upgrades on a phone were a no-brainer and if you didn't get them, you got screwed. Since then I've seen a few things that changed my mind. One is that manufacturers including Apple have sometimes (not always) released updates for old devices that can't really keep up and which seriously degrade performance. Typically you can't go back, so that's a problem. The upcoming iOS 6 might be seen as a downgrade on the Maps front as well.
Another is that the Gingerbread to ICS was a huge change in user interface - for the better, I think - but time and time again the software business has learned that some users just don't want big UI changes, period. I'm pretty sure if every Gingerbread device became Jellybean tomorrow, a lot of Slashdot readers would rejoice and a lot of our friends/relatives/etc would hate Android with a passionate fire, just because it's a big change that would take them by surprise. Apple has largely avoided this problem by not making any big UI changes over the iPhones lifetime. You could argue they got it right first time, I guess ;)
To quote what I wrote:
The general consensus regarding the PDK for Android Jellybean and upwards seems to lean in the same direction as I am saying: "it won't amount to much, if anything at all." The biggest problem for end-users is the fact that companies do not want to do updates for already-released products, so releasing a PDK that is supposed to let start working on the updates slightly earlier than regularly -- with no other positive effects or incentives whatsoever -- really means nothing. If Google really sought to improve the situation for end-users they should start maintaining a "Google Experience" - version of Android.
Implementing a "Google Experience" Android would first off require them to modularize Android somewhat so that it can be slimmed down by not installing features that won't be used, like e.g. voice search and everything related to it is mostly worthless in any country which do not support it so why insist on installing it? Allow user to choose to install it, yes, but do not force it. Modularizing Android this way would help in a situation where there is not enough storage to install the whole thing: the installer could present the user with a warning dialog explaining the situation and let user pick and unpick features -- with explanation on what each feature means -- until the system fits comfortably, then before starting the installation remind the user of what features won't be available and make certain the user still wishes to proceed.
A second thing that would be needed would be for manufacturers to start including, say, 32 kilobytes of ROM where would be details about the actual hardware: device manufacturer, model, revision, amount of installed RAM, sizes, types and location of any storage and then a listing of all the hardware with manufacturer, model, revision, connection type, memory addresses/register addresses/etc. needed for using the device, what features the device supports and so on. The installer would then be able to check the list against Google-maintained drivers to see if there even exists drivers for the hardware, if the drivers support the connection type/scheme, etc. Also, one of the more important things would be that it would also be able to check if the Google-maintained drivers support all the features the hardware supports, and if not, the installer could warn the user of the features they would lose by installing "Google Experience" - Android.
In that ROM could also be defined a list -- even if it were just a partial one -- of what applications the manufacturer provides on the stock ROM so that the "Google Experience" installer could try to offer substitutes for them after the installation is finished.
These two things would solve almost all the major issues related to upgrading to newer Android-versions and would quite obviously benefit end-users enormously. As always, though, there's a catch. Actually, two catches, in this case: manufacturers won't want to make it easier for customers to get updates for their devices because they want people to keep buying new shiny, ergo. they will not install the kind of list I mentioned, and Google won't want to go along with the plan because Google wants only their Nexus-line to be directly Google-approved.
I don't know if open sourcing everything is necessary.
If SONY wants their experia UI, HTC wants their Sense, Samsung wants whatever theirs is called, then I'd be fine with them keeping that locked up as tight as they want.
But when they add a piece of hardware that is not familiar from other devices, open up the interface to that hardware.
Right now I could put CyanogenMod on mine, but the FM radio wouldn't work, the camera wouldn't work, and mobile data wouldn't work. Pass.
But that's not the CyanogenMod devs fault - they have to work with what's available, and the stock Android rom doesn't know what to do with the hardware there either.
If only the manufacturer opened up the interfaces, then those devs could easily build bridge software.
As it is, I opted to go with another rom that's based on the manufacturer's official rom binaries. That's not gonna fly for getting ICS or JB on there, though.
That said, I'm happy with it as it is - some setcpu and link2sd sprinkled on top and off it goes. It'll never be a Galaxy SIII - but then, a Galaxy SII will never be a Galaxy SIII either.
Even though my Viewsonic G-Tablet will run it, there is no official version or support and the only version I have found is missing enough functionality that I see no reason to install it.
I would run it on my phone, but again, there is no official version for it.
The reason people don't run the latest or even current versions of Andriod is because it requires technical expertise, willingness to brick phone/tablet, and possibly putting up with a loss of functionalit; OR spending $600 for a new device.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
The genie is out of the bottle.
You can take our data plans but you cannot take our FREEDOM!!!
I don't really see another way around this. The same problem plagues computer OSs also, look at windows.
The only way I see to do this is to either force the updates directly or to have a short cutoff point for support and compatibility. (thus forcing them indirectly)
A lot of consumers won't like this. They naturally want/prefer something they bought to last a lifetime without "paying again" to update or replace/upgrade it. But in the long-run, fragmentation is bad for them. Since companies make money off upgrades and updates and not from customers buying/paying only once, they're seen as evil for prodding or forcing their users to keep moving up. Unfortunately only part of that is profiteering. The other benefit is one to the users in the long term.
It's a difficult thing to get consumers to understand, they tend to see the short term costs and overlook the long-term benefits. This creates a difficult balancing act for the vendors. Updates need to be as transparent, quick, easy, and cheap as possible, while keeping the platform on the move. It's impossible to design hardware that's future-proof on software, so new hardware has to be bought as well as new software.
Apple appears to be one of the better players in the "move along" game. They won't support an OS more than 1 version back, and have a somewhat regular release schedule. OS upgrades used to be expensive, but have dropped dramatically in price recently. The updates have several big new features added to them as well as improvement on existing features, so the users can at least see some immediate justification for upgrading. From what I see, around 30% of Macintoshes run the current version, 50% are one version behind, and only about 20% are two or more versions out of date. They've done an excellent job in keeping their platform on the move.
The critics will usually still beat on the same negatives while ignoring the benefits. There's a regular "tax" for the newest OS. New hardware has to be purchased more frequently. But I think it's worth it in the long-term for the users. Fragmentation is avoided. Developers don't have to write code that will work on machines spanning a decade of OS or hardware. (this makes development faster and cheaper, support cheaper, and keeps 3rd party app quality and features high.
Digital TV is a good example of the benefits that result in forcing change. The only thing that was going to get the industry to move to digital was to make it mandatory. I'm sure there are still some that are moaning that their old TV was working fine and why did they have to force me to buy a new set. But I think most of us can be thankful for the result.
So the issue isn't just with the vendors, it's also an issue of the users. Your userbase alse has to be willing to tolerate any inconvenience and expense associated with staying current. And the simple fact of the matter is, not all userbases will tolerate it. I think the majority of people that buy cheap phones want to spend as little as possible, and that's not compatible with regular upgrades, of hardware OR software. This could make the problem very difficult for Google to solve, because a big part of their market is the cheap phones. The users AND the actual phone vendors both don't want to invest in keeping current. I personally think the only way for them to fix this is to make the upgrade process something that the vendors can very easily "turn on" in their phones, a process that's very low cost to the vendors (in terms of development, support, and need for new hardware) and zero cost and inconvenience to the end users. Anything else just won't work in those markets. If you can't deliver on all of those points, the vendors will make each handset work with one build only, and will continue to sell it until its unprofitable, growing the fragmentation.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
As long as phone makers want to control the experience and Google doesn't provide its own EASY way to bypass that, they're going to have to deal with a fragmented base.
Testing from 2.3->4.0->4.1 is NOTHING compared to testing and redeveloping across every different gpu and cpu that tries to beat it's way into the mobile market.
The problem with "fragmentation" has less to do with Google, or even the vendors, and more to do with the rapid development of the Android OS and the devices capable of running it. The devices that run 1.0 can't run 4.0- not enough resources in RAM or Flash.
This bitch is stupid, really. Anyone bitching that an old Iphone can't run the latest iOS or a laptop from 5 years back can't really run Win7 or the upcoming Win8, calling that situation "fragmentation"? NO? Well shut the hell up on it about Android, will you? That's what's going on.
7% is even more pathetic than it sounds. Let me back up and start with a different observation...
I keep reading that 80% of iOS users are on the latest release, and it seems too high to me that 80% of users would upgrade. Well, they didn't. iOS sales are growing at about 100% per year. Which means that at any point in time, approximately half the units ever sold were sold in the past year. So 50% of iOS devices run the latest version because they were bought since it came out. Now, only 60% of the remaining 50% have to actually upgrade--and I haven't accounted for old devices that are no longer in use and therefore no longer show up in these stats, and therefore increase the proportion of newer devices.
Well, guess what? Android device sales have been growing even faster than iOS. More than 50% of units shipped in the last year. But only 7% of units have the version that was released 1.5 years ago??? This means the device manufacturers are doing a unbelievably bad job of keeping up to date. If this continues, then only 7% of devices will be running Jelly Bean by about the beginning of 2014. Now there are certain things about the way that Android is distributed which mean that new versions will necessarily spread slower than iOS to some degree, and this announcement is an attempt to change that. But given the current spread of new OS versions, I think it's pretty obvious that the handset manufacturers (and carriers) don't even care and are not even trying AT ALL. Given that, I'm not sure that making it easier for them will be enough.
I don't know how google solves this, but they sure need to! This is a good (and necessary) step, but I worry that device manufacturers will not be sufficiently motivated to take advantage and stay as up to date as they should...
You know that Android vendor you bought Google? Motorola Mobility.
Certain phones are still stuck on 2.x because *your company* won't update them. Less than 2 year old (24 month contract) phones are stuck on froyo - e.g Defy.
Providing an unlocked bootloader so the community (e.g. cyanogenmod) can update them to Jellybean would be a good sign.
TFA says devices are still "three major releases behind". Well, let's think about that.
After 2.3 came 3.0, Honeycomb, which was for tablets only. Then after a long time came 4.0, Ice Cream Sandwich, for phones again. Now 4.1, Jellybean, is the next major release, and it is so new that Google just announced it.
So, what is the actual current situation? Jellybean is totally new and there is no way any phone can have it yet. ICS is shipping on some phones, and other phones have shipped with 2.3 Gingerbread but with a promise to upgrade to ICS soon. No phones are running Honeycomb because it is for tablets only.
So I think the "three major releases behind" bit is disingenuous. It would be more fair to say "ICS has been a bit slow to roll out" but I guess that's not as impressive.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Only TWO versions behind, not three. NO phones received Honeycomb. That was tablet only and doesn't count.
If your old phone has all the new stuff you're less likely to buy a new phone. Manufacturers have no incentive to update their phones and I suspect they'll fight any initiative that tries and force them to do it.
This is a critical issue.
Microsoft, at least, made a core of code that ran PCs in the early days. It was connected to hardware specific resources by drivers. Evolution of the platform OS incorporated backward compatibility as essential and in the few places where this broke down, they at least made a passing attempt to provide tools (such as virtualizations) to allow it, even it if does come with higher costs as in Win7.
I realize these are PCs and not phones that I am using as an example, but the connector here is that Google has put the core code out there, and handset makers A, B and C are tweaking these fundamental portions, adding phone-specific stuff, and doing it in the face of product revision cycles that make the early days of the PC look placid. who has time and resources to track HUNDREDS of variations? This isn't about plastic color. It's about gazillions of lines of code.
Apple, OTOH, has a thread of consistency, usually an upgrade path, and other ecosystem-specific attractions. When you take this fact, and the fact that no one in Android land seems to be making any money for their efforts, I am puzzled why anyone wants to do development on Android?
Really, why? It's not about market share; effort should be about profitably selling successful product (apps). Taking your valuable programming smarts and wasting them on something that promises little reward seems just silly.
It won't help, and here's why:
Google fundamentally do not understand the mobile phone industry. Most phone manufacturers are following a broadly similar development methodology: design phone, put together firmware to run on it, release phone, get on with designing next phone.
This is all carried out at breakneck speed because most of the manufacturers insist on having a stupidly large range of handsets.
Once work on the next phone has started, firmware upgrades to the last model they were working on are few and far between - and often only because really bad bugs have been discovered. Sometimes not even then.
You can't resolve this with a generic Android build which anyone can install because mobile phone hardware isn't sufficiently standardised as to allow this. Look at cyanogenmod: yeah, it works on some devices, but it requires a build specific to the device and many devices have a great big long list of caveats associated with running cyanogenmod on them.
This won't change any time soon because the phone industry is happy with things the way they are - if anything, it works in their favour. Your two year old handset's looking a little long in the tooth because we haven't bothered to release any updates for it? Fine, your contract's up for renewal soon anyway. Why not just get a new handset then?
I don't know where you are, but here in the UK it's easy to buy basically any smartphone or tablet device of any level, from the basic entry-level gear up to the latest Galaxy or iPhone model, directly and with all the usual consumer protection laws applicable. Then you can get a SIM-only package, on a rolling monthly contract without any long-term tie-in, from any of the major phone networks to get the voice and/or data connectivity.
Most people don't do this, because it would force them to confront the real cost of buying that shiny new smartphone instead of mentally writing it off as part of a monthly credit agreement^W^Wcalling plan, where both the cost and the interest rate they're effectively paying for the device are mixed in with the flate rate they're paying for the network anyway. But as with most credit-like agreements, if you have the money up-front and do the maths, it's almost always cheaper over the lifetime of the deal to buy your own device, and of course it gives you a lot more flexibility to change your connectivity package mid-term as better deals become available in a highly competitive market.
I'm always slightly surprised that the usual rules we have here for advertising credit agreements (making it clear that you're tied into paying a certain interest rate, described in a standardised way) haven't been applied to the mobile phone market. If the carriers were forced to describe how much their calling plan is really costing in an easily comparable format, and to show the price of the equivalent up-front purchase and separate connectivity, I suspect the market would shift rather sharply in the average consumer's favour.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I tried upgrading the official, correct way - requires an app that forces itself into the usb stack, and doesn't run properly on anything other than 32bit windows. My galaxy S1 can't upgrade itself from the phone - so I'm still on 2.2 unless I want to root it again. So it's not really google's fault, it's somewhere between AT&T (for me) and Samsung.
That manufacturers continue to release brand new devices running Gingerbread with no upgrade path to Ice Cream Sandwich whatsoever. And its not like these are devices that started development long before ICS appeared, some of them are devices that were likely early enough in their development phase that they could easily have started work on an ICS port at that point (and in some cases even potentially switched to ICS before the release)
Google already has certification requirements for a "Google" device that has Play/Marketplace, gmail etc on it.
Some things I think Google should add to those requirements that would benefit Android:
1.They should tell OEMs that after , any not-yet-released devices that want certification MUST be running Ice Cream Sandwich or at the very least have a defined upgrade path to ICS.
2.They should tell OEMs that Google must be the default search engine (after all, the search is a big part of how Google makes its money on Android)
3.They should tell OEMs that they must fully comply with the license of any and all software they are shipping on the phone (including the GPLv2 for the Linux Kernel). No more of this "its industry standard practice to release kernel source weeks/months after the binaries have shipped" BS that some OEMs *cough*HTC*cough* keep pulling again and again.
But 99% don't give a crap.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
google needs to build in a OS update push that bypasses all carriers. Waiting for the carrier to get around to it is not working and will not work. Bypass them.
android phones should check for updates from the mother-ship at google. and tell Motorola, HTC,Samsung,Dell,Sony,LG, ATT, Verizon, etc... all to suck eggs.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
From: Google To: AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, Orange, et al re: Software updates Notice! Starting 1 Jan, 2013, GOOGLE will institute a new procedure to update any device running an android OS. After this date, when WE release a new OS, it will be automatically downloaded to any device that is capable of supporting a new release. There will be a message on the client device stating the OS has an update, and the necessary instructions to update said device. We take this action, because our partner carriers are too damn lazy to push the updates themselves, counting on the stupidity of the average consumer into buying a NEW device every year. Sincerely, Google P.S. SUCK IT!
.. and that's exactly what carriers are doing. Doing whatever is cheaper and easier for them. Do what you want.
You are correct, the typical "customer" for a phone manufacturer is a carrier. That is the real problem. Only Apple has turned this on its head and made the end user "the customer". I'm not sure how they can change now, but the is the biggest challenge for Google.
That's also got a trojan, and not the ribbed kind. It fucks you up good, anyway.
If Google want to prevent Android fragmentation, all it has to do is create the best SDK. If it's the best, then the majority of developers will use it and its version of Android. Fragmentation would be reduce because the majority of phones would use the same version.
Don't stop where the ink does.
Simple question here. I attempted to buy a silicone keyboard for a business trip but it won't work with my HTC Evo 4G (ISW11HT). Works with other android devices. Known problem apparently. I tried it in the store and it will pair but not connect. The silicone keyboard app also had trouble installing.
So is it really impossible to patch this thing?
I've been running alpha CyanogenMod 9 ROMs on my HTC Wildfire S (600 MHz ARM11-based CPU, weak Adreno 200 GPU) for months. Runs ridiculously smooth, way faster than its stock HTC Sense ROM. I'd say ICS and probably Jelly Bean run on crap hardware just fine.
What's holding back the updates are mainly poorly integrated OEM customizations, crude drivers and generally low quality hardware abstraction; if you look at the code, you'll find hacks for SoC-specific quirks on surprisingly high levels in the Android software stacks. Much of the Android userspace was never written for hardware acceleration, the Linux kernel's touchscreen support wasn't anywhere near complete when Android 1 was released, etc. These issues were never handled in a cohesive, cooperative manner so instead we have (probably hundreds of) device-specific hacks in code that shouldn't need to know anything about what it's running on.
Newer devices may have less trouble with this since the Linux kernel's been slowly picking up Android features and their OEM-released kernel sources will be closer to stock Linux, but the poor layering of functionality is likely still there.
A lot of work the CyanogenMod developers are doing is essentially finding and forward porting these hacks to enable the Android 4 userspace to function in the absence of proper handling of such quirks.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Only 7% running ICS because the majority of people don't want to purchase a new phone ever since google screwed us over with updates. Considering we can't run ICS on the majority of Android phones on sale right now, why bother upgrading? Forcing us to buy some new battery hungry phone isn't gonna do it.
The typical customer for a phone manufacturer in the U.S. is a carrier. This is a quite U.S.-centric problem.
In America it is NOT cheaper to buy a phone and go with a month to month contract. Those contracts are MORE expensive than plans that include subsidized phones. I've done the math repeatedly to try to find the best deal. Hands down, it is cheaper to buy a phone on a two year contract, than it is to buy a phone up front and go with a similar month to month plan. It isn't even close.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
If they want to stop it then they need to take an approach like Apple, with the exception of very old phones they can all run the same version iOS. With Android half the phones run froyo and cannot be upgraded, the other half run GB and might be able to be upgraded. What makes the fragmentation happen is because the older phones to run the newer version OS a new branch has to be created to port it to that phone thus creating even more fragmentation.
So if they make a OS that 90% of the phones can run then you end the fragmentation and then devs can concentrate on customization only or app dev.
In Denmark, the minimum total cost you agree to pay must be printed on commercials. I don't know the numbers, but I don't think it has done much to lower the proportion of phones bought on a plan. Of course, it might be the case that it has forced the carriers to become less greedy.
You can do that in the states as well. Granted to you have purchase one that supports the technology the carrier you want uses (CMDA or GSM).
If it's GSM, then you can simply get a SIM card from the carrier you want and off you go (just like you guys over the pond). The exception again is a "hardware" limitation... the frequencies the carrier uses. While you'll get the basics on any of the carriers, for 3G and up the frequencies change (T-Mobile uses AWS in 1700MHz/2100MHz if I recall correctly, while others like AT&T use 1900MHz.. while both use the 800/900 bands as well.. as far as my memory serves me).
For example, I'm on a small carrier that serves 6 counties in Pennsylvania. They offer 3 types of plans: Local which is basically you use their towers in the 6 counties and else where it's roaming; Nationwide which uses their towers plus AT&T, T-Mobile, and over 10 other "smaller" GSM providers; and their unlimited which is similar to the nation wide but everything is unlimited in the plan and doesn't have quite a large of a coverage area but does cover most of the US. As a side note, the Nationwide plan is still unlimited data for an extra (now $15) $30 a month, but they are still only rolling on Edge speeds with a 4G roll-out happening this year.
Now CDMA is more of an issue because it's harder to find an unlocked CDMA phone (still not that hard), and you can't just change a SIM card and go since there isn't a SIM card. You have to call into the carrier to get it activated and what not, but I believe for the 3G speeds Verizon, Sprint, Cricket, etc all use the same frequency bands.
On a side note, I can't stand locked phones. My neighbors cheaper AT&T phone was acting up but she wasn't sure if it was the tower or her phone. I removed her SIM card and put mine in, and the phone rejected it saying it wasn't authorized... even though it was a very basic phone that no one would even bother to sell online. With my VWZ BB Storm I had, when I went to switch to Immix I had to call Verizon and tell them I was going to Europe and was being provided a SIM card so I needed the phone unlocked. After making sure I was a customer with them for more than 3 months (it was past 2 years for sure) and my past payment history was okay, only then did they unlock it. Of course after it was unlocked I went to Immix and signed up, popped their SIM card into the SIM slot on the Storm and off I went.
So even though the 2 year "contract" was up on the phone, so VZW got their subsidized money back and then some, they still gave me a bit of a hassle to unlock the phone that was "now mine". I wish regulations would be put in place that as soon as you either terminate the contract and pay the $350 they charge for a smartphone now or after your contract is up they would be forced to automatically unlock the phone.
If anyone is planning on running for office, that idea may get you some extra votes!
... with the notable exception of T-Mobile which charges $20/month more if you have a phone you haven't paid off. Of course, then you have T-Mobile which does not have great coverage.
I know a lot of Android users. Most of them are not techies. That same group all have one thing in common, they run outdated versions of gingerbread. But they don't do it because they can't upgrade, they don't do it because it's difficult (1 click in most software), they do it because frankly they just don't give a damn.
I've been trying to convince several colleagues to upgrade to no avail. My own father didn't bother upgrading his iPhone (work issued) either until his IT group at work forced it upon all the company issued phones.
99% of users of iPhones don't give a crap either. I have a theory now as to why. iTunes
I know very few people who have iPhones and don't regularly attach them to their computer. I don't think you can start an iPhone when you buy it without installing iTunes first. iTunes will then be the thing that announces to the user that there's an upgrade (does it force it upon users?).
On the flip side probably just under half the smartphone population at my workplace have a Samsung Galaxy S or Galaxy S II. Most of those people have no idea what Keis is or what it does. Their phones worked out of the box when they bought them, and when they attach them to the computer they are given the option if they want to use USB Mass Storage or something else. Even the people who do connect their phone to their computer have no idea what this Ice Cream Sandwich thing is or that it's available for their phones.
And why should they? Their phones work. They are unlikely to be motivated to even go see if an upgrade is available until they are greeted with an error message or something saying, "Your phone is out of date, please upgrade the software via this link ...."
> You can do that in the states as well.
As long as your carrier is AT&T, or you don't care about data faster than GPRS.
As a practical matter, unlocked GSM phones don't exist as normal consumer goods in the US. If somebody is selling them, they're imported.
Most imported GSM phones *still* can't do UMTS on T-Mobile's frequencies (1700/2100). Some imported phones don't even support EDGE (though thankfully, that seemes to have been almost exclusively a Nokia disease), and are stuck with uselessly slow GPRS when operating on T-Mobile. And even if the phone DOES (by some miracle) support 1700/2100MHz UMTS, it still probably won't be able to do HSPA+, so you'll still be stuck with half the speed of a "real" T-mobile phone.
As for using non-VZW phones on Verizon, good luck... hopefully, 1xRTT is fast enough for you, because non-Verizon phones can't do EVDO on Verizon (not even when roaming). I don't remember the exact reason why, but it basically comes down to this: unless the non-VZW phone has an identical twin sold by Verizon and you can get the Verizon radio modem firmware to flash to your phone, it will never do EVDO on Verizon.
Sprint? Forget it. Short of doing some very, very illegal things to make your shiny new non-Sprint phone impersonate your old Sprint phone, Sprint will never allow you to activate a non-Sprint phone on your account. They'll happily let you roam with it on Sprint, as long as it's associated with another company like Telus (Canada) or Verizon, but they'll never allow you to use that same phone as a Sprint customer.
There's no inherent reason why a CDMA phone can't be as interoperable as an unlocked GSM phone. In many other countries, they are. Unfortunately, Qualcomm decided to make R-UIM (the CDMA superset of GSM's SIM standard) an optional feature that Sprint and Verizon declined to implement.
Until the FCC decides to force Sprint and Verizon to allow activation of any phone that's physically capable of working on the network, and until foreign phones routinely ship with 1700/2100 HSPA+ implemented and enabled, buying an unlocked phone and using it in the US is somewhere between an "urban legend" and an "april fool's joke".
If you pretend that only Nexus devices exist, we have close to what we are asking for. The manufacturers will only make Nexus equivalent devices if it makes economic sence to do so. No need for contracts/laws to force manufacturers. If the Nexus devices start selling at significant numbers, the manufactureres will get a lot of pressure.The whole ecosystem will evolve on merit, much like open source. Pressure on Google, pressure on manufactureres. The iOS method of organising the ecosystem has other issues. They restrict flexibility to ensure consistancy. I think we have the better scenario.
I suspect it's because of how uncompetitive the market is here. AT&T has no incentive to pass on the savings for people bringing in their own phone because verizon doesn't do it either.
What plans have you been comparing? Virgin Mobile offers the iPhone 4S at full price but with a $35/month prepaid plan, and it's FAR cheaper than any contract iPhone over 2 years.
I'm always slightly surprised that the usual rules...haven't been applied to the mobile phone market.
If the carriers were forced...I suspect the market would shift rather sharply in the average consumer's favour.
I think you answered your own question.
I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
That's not entirely true. Some contracts are quite spiffy.
I got a Samsung Galaxy S2 from 3 on a 2 year contract @ €40 per month. That works out at €960. They gave me the phone for free. The package included all you can eat data & 350 'points' (1 point = 1 minute / 2 SMS)
Given how the handset was ~€500 at the time I'm looking at €20 pm for the call/data plan.
You have a source for that statement?
I just did this math with T-Mobile, I figured I'd break even a little bit before the end of the first year. But it's really going to depend on which phone you try to use. T-Mobile's selection of phones for their monthly plans sucks. A Galaxy Nexus directly from Google looks a lot better, but it's hard to compare apples to apples.
In any case, I won't be staying on a contract plan once my current contract is up. If I elect not to buy new phones at all I'll start saving nearly $70/mo. by switching (two phones).
People are never as simple as their stereotypes. This applies equally to Christians, Muslims, and Emacs-lovers.
Most people don't do this, because it would force them to confront the real cost of buying that shiny new smartphone instead of mentally writing it off as part of a monthly credit agreement
You can get the same unlocked and unmolested phone on contract if you just buy from someone other than the phone companies. I got my Galaxy S III from Phones 4 You. I'm on Vodaphone, same price, same package and same data/minutes as a normal Vodaphone customer but the handset is unlocked and doesn't have any Vodaphone crap on it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I disagree. Using TMobile, I did the math and came to the following conclusion ($1000 is for retail costs of two phones, one low-end and one high end):
The amazing thing (to me) is that even with a $1000 outlay, I still save over $400 over the life of the contract. Even if I get lucky and get the contract phones for half off each, I'm still $250 ahead over the life of the contract. The drawback is that it's a steep initial investment.
You can decide as the consumer to continue your plan indefinitely.
Your carrier is not a consumer, they are a supplier. And they are being told they can't demand a longer term. But if their customer wants to stay, they can.
Yours is rather mutually exclusive. Expecting consumers and suppliers to be equally free whilst only allowing the supplier to dictate terms and calling it "Free Market" is bollocks.
Unless the customer is allowed to modify the terms, the market is not free. And your desire would be to ban a ban on refusing to allow customers to modify the terms, entrenching a statist approach to the market.
In America it is NOT cheaper to buy a phone and go with a month to month contract. Those contracts are MORE expensive than plans that include subsidized phones. I've done the math repeatedly to try to find the best deal. Hands down, it is cheaper to buy a phone on a two year contract, than it is to buy a phone up front and go with a similar month to month plan. It isn't even close.
Not to mention the fact that in the past, I have had carriers force you to have a two year agreement with the same terms even if you did not get a discount on the phone.
Yes, that's another option that is usually unambiguously better than a long-term lock-in with the phone companies -- though you do have to put up with the world's pushiest salespeople, allegedly. ;-)
It's a kind of halfway house, I suppose. As you say, you get the "free" phone without the locking and other junk installed, but on the other hand you're still tied into a potentially expensive and inflexible monthly contract for 1-2 years in return.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
In France, before the advent of Free Mobile in January 2012, buying your own phone and getting a no-phone contract was possible but not economically viable. The discount you got from not getting the subsidized phone was ridiculously small.
T-Mobile is useless for me, as their coverage sucks donkey balls. Where I live, I've had all the different carriers, and ATT(T-Mobile) and Sprint are basically crap. I've got to have VZ because they have the best coverage. And that is the whole point of having a cell phone (Smart or otherwise).
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Verizon
Galaxy SIII 16 GB = $199.99 on contract + $90/mo
Galazy SIII 16 GB = $599.99 Retail + $80 Month
T-Mobile /mo
Galaxy SIII 16 GB = $629.99 Retail + $60/mo
Galaxy SIII 16 GB = $279.99 Contract + 79.99
In this case, T-Mobile Month vs Contract is a better deal to get the phone up front, albeit marginally. However, for me T-Mobile is a no go simply because their coverage sucks where I live.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.