replying to you your "see your comment here" post:
No, I disagree. Here they are leveraging brand name recognition, but that is not abuse of monopoly.
The difference between WhamOS and Microsoft is name recognition, not desktop-monopoly. Same as Apple made ipad's rather than creating a shell corporation called Turnip and selling Tpads through it.
Leveraging brand name recognition is not 'abuse of monopoly'.
Its really no different than microsofts foray into consoles with the xbox. (Which I also note is locked down.)
Actually, there's no reason the OS shouldn't be able to turn Secure boot ON using ACPI. There is good reason the OS shouldn't be able to turn it OFF.
You make a good point there. I haven't heard that this is possible, but there's no fundamental reason why it couldn't or shouldn't be. Provided that once its on, it can't be turned off the same way.
Although it still requires that the Microsoft key be preloaded, and then I assume the OS could also check that a given key is there. Clearly the OS shouldn't be able to load a key in either.
I still think ts simpler and not unreasonable to ship enabled.
I figure a large number of users would just cancel that box because it would inevitably say something like "once you click yes you can't change it back again from inside the OS", and that would be too "scary" to enable.
They have to reboot the PC, press delete or f12 or whatever at the appropriate second, go into uefi ("bios") and locate the secure boot setting and choose to enable it. Save changes, and reboot.
And that's if the key is already pre-loaded. If its not... its more complicated.
If the OS could turn secure boot on or off from a popup on your windows desktop then it wouldn't be secure boot at all.
And neither Google nor Apple have OS monopolies, nor are they offering the same OS on desktops and tablets.
Fair enough, but: ios is related to OSX Android is related to ChromeOS
So what about Windows 8 ARM vs Windows 8 x86? Are they really the same OS? The ARM version is missing major features, and the two editions can't run any of the same programs due to the architecture difference. Is the ARM OS really the "same"? Or could it be considered a different product?
Microsoft is seeing the writing on the wall, namely that people are ditching their desktops and laptops for tablets.
Yes, yes, but people who still need computers will still buy computers. There's a lot of people out there with a laptop that just need a tablet... but there's a lot of people out there who need an actual computer.
So they are trying to leverage their (near) desktop monopoly into a tablet monopoly, namely by trying to flood the market with Surface tablets and locking down the hardware so that you can run nothing other than their software on it.
I agree they may well be trying to flood the tablet market with locked down surface tablets, but I don't see them leveraging their desktop monopoly to do it.
Yes, that is an attempt to gain a monopoly
No more so than ipad's are apple's attempt to gain a monopoly.
if that situation had existed for x86 hardware, we wouldn't have Linux or any open operating systems.
I don't necessarily disagree. But Microsoft isn't leveraging their existing monopoly to try and lock down the tablet market. They probably are trying to lock down the tablet market, but they aren't using the desktop monopoly to do it.
Furthermore, if there is nothing to be gained from it, as you argue, why doesn't Microsoft leave it up to vendors, just like they do with x86 hardware?
Now, can you kindly tell me how any of that would be relevant if I should want to install Linux on an ARM based tablet?
Yes MS's insistence there is an issue that we can all agree is undesireable, but the point is it has nothing to do with their desktop monopoly. They aren't leveraging their monopoly to make that happen.
Most of the exisiting non-Microsoft ARM devices are also locked down*... clearly one doesn't need a monopoly to leverage to make that happen.
(* And its just as undesirable that ipad's and many android tablets are locked out..)
Yes, i agree completely with you on this. However, that doesn't mean we should object to -this-. We should object to -that-. We should even start objecting to -that- now, and get regulation in place to ensure -that- can't happen.
Yes its a "hit" but its a necessary one and a reasonable one, and microsoft isn't doing it with malice towards other operating systems, but merely to check the spread of rootkits etc against windows.
Hell, the fact that Microsoft is even allowing linux distros to be signed against their key suggests how far they are willing to go to accomodate easy 'other os'.
I'm not saying distros should take advantage of it in general... installing the distro key manually i think is the better solution overall; but it is nice to have this as an option, especially for LiveCDs.
Not unattended nor without messing with the BIOS configuration. It is just one more barrier added by the incumbent to distort the playing field.
No, its there to stop root kits.
The barrier to other OSes is a problem, but to use a car analogy, its like buying a car and the wheels have a lug nut lock because theft of wheels has been a growing problem.
The aftermarket rim vendors get upset because its a barrier to easily installing new wheels. And this is true. and its just a matter of unlocking the nut to change the wheel. Sure, its one extra step, and thus a 'barrier' but its dishonest to claim the OEM did it to lock out aftermarket wheels. -- The owner the car was given the key for crying out loud.
And in order to gain a monopoly on that new platform, they lock it down there.
How does locking it down gain them a monopoly in a new market?
If people want an android arm device they buy one... If they want an apple arm device they buy one...
The fact that you can't install ios or android on your arm tablet that came preloaded with windows 8 is hardly going to gain them a monopoly.
None of these companies have a desktop monopoly, hence it doesn't matter what they do.
Microsoft isn't leveraging its monopoly at all though. If they told OEMs they could only sell Windows 8 ARM devices if they wanted to sell windows 8 desktops -that- would be an example of leveraging their marketshare.
Requiring that windows 8 arm 'appliance' devices be locked down, the same as most any other arm appliance device is not an abuse of monopoly.
so I'm only speaking hypothetically, but Microsoft could use their monopoly on desktop OS:es as leverage when they negotiate with OEM manufacturers, and get them to lock down ARM devices.
Apple, Samsung, HTC, Motorola, all have locked down bootloaders on devices... clearly you don't need a desktop monopoly for leverage here.
But it's a simple point of fact to state that it is using a monopoly position in one area of a market to abuse another.
How on earth do you see the two linked?
To "abuse a monopoly position" would require that one need a monopoly in order to do something else. Ie... only Microsoft could abuse its desktop monopoly to force internet explorer onto every desktop. Opera can't put its browser on every desktop no matter how badly it wants to because it doesn't have that desktop monopoly.
So how does having a desktop monopoly facilitate Microsoft's move on ARM? Apple has locked down all its ARM devices.HTC, Samsung, Motorola are all selling ARM devices with locked bootloaders...
Indeed it seems any player in the market can and routinely does lock down the bootloaders on its smartphones and tablets.
So explain to me, how exactly does Microsoft's desktop monopoly enable them to do something other manufacturers can't do? Because it seems to me that Microsoft is no different than the already established players in the ARM smartphone and tablet players.
Clearly, my bad. I'd hope the sentiment was clear from the over all post, but for the sake of correcting it, the "does" in the first quoted sentence should be "does not" or "doesn't".
The "problem" is that we want point to point communications (no middleman) that aren't a pain to make work.
Your solution doesn't seem to address this.
- for instance using asterisk as a ZRTP passthrough. In theory this should cost ~$3/mo for most people to use if both ends are correctly configured.
We still have a middleman (to whom are we paying $3/mo).
We still have to configure 'both ends' - this is the "pain to make work" that end users don't want.
Point to point communications with no middleman are definitely possible, but realistically aren't practical on the internet as it is.
Honestly, even with ipv6 and a global address space its not going to be easy enough -- even without NAT the edge routers in every household and business and wifi hotspot etc are going to have to let incoming calls in to your device. And that's just not ever going to happen. There is ALWAYS going to be a middleman... the only question is who.
The best we can really hope for is a decentralized non-commercial p2p cluster of middlemen.
And if you read that document the FSF advocates options b) and c) in my previous post. (installing their own keys, signing their own code). This is something users are free to do without having to trust in microsoft nor interact with microsoft, nor "beg" for licenses from microsoft.
In other words, the FSF, unlike you, recognizes that users can install other OSes without Microsoft.
Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly in ARM devices (tablets and smartphones). Their competitors in Apple and even many Androids have restricted boot to their signed binaries.
We all agree that its not the situation we want, and we all agree we should demand the right to the keys to our devices (which we currently have on x86).
But it is absurd to suggest Microsoft is abusing its monopoly position in the ARM device market.
), but it doesn't change the fact Canonical and Redhat were forced to buy a license *from Microsoft* or else their OSes would not run.
That is not true.
Their OSes will run just fine provided any of the following are done:
a) the user logs into UEFI and disables secure boot
b) the user logs into UEFI and installs a distro key
c) the user logs into UEFI and installs their own key and signs the distro themselves.
d) the distro provider works with the manufacturer to have their key pre-loaded the same as microsofts.
Microsoft (currently) does prevent or even hinder any one of those alternatives on x86.
Canonical and Red Hat noted that a & b require at least a nomimal effort by the end user. (c requires a fair bit of effort for the end user) And that d required a substantial effort on their part.
So they chose "e) sign our distros with the MS key" that Microsoft already took the effort to have preloaded so that our users don't need to take the nominal step of disabling secure boot or of installing their own keys.
"That is called restraint-of-trade and it is VERY clearly a violation of the Sherman Antitrust "...
No its not.
"now they are actively blocking other OSes from Opera/Google/other OSes from running (unless they beg MS for a license)"
You don't need a license from microsoft. The end user can disable secure boot. The end user can install their own keys. The distro can approach the hardware manufacturer and have their own keys preloaded along side microsofts.
Microsoft isn't preventing anyone from doing anything, and you do not need to interact with microsoft at all to install other OSes.
Please COMPREHEND the above before replying or commenting on the subject further.
Umm, how about no thanks? It's time for the programmer community to develop easy to use, robust, strongly encrypted, point to point programs.
And that will happen right after ipv6 becomes standard and NAT goes away. point to point is pretty tricky to make 'just' work in our currented "ipv4 nearly everyone is behind a NAT system".
Realistically, a middle man is going to be here for a long while yet.
You are obviously the kinda guy who wouldn't have felt the need to upgrade Vista to Windows 7
"wouldn't have"? I sure would have. Why do you assert that I wouldn't have? Based on the fact that I still have an iphone 3GS? My iphone 3GS has ios 5.1.1 the current version of ios.
I absolutely would upgrade the OS if I saw any advantage to it.
Now, the hardware? Its true I didn't buy a 4 or 4S, but in Canada I was stuck in a 3 year contract for the iphone, and that's just run out recently.
The major exclusive features they added on the 4 and 4S were not compelling to me. Siri? Facetime? I doubt I could think of things a phone could have that I could care less about.
Now, the base hardware itself -- faster CPU, and higher resolution screen have value to me... but not enough to buy the phone outright in the middle of a contract.
So here I am at the end of a contract, looking to buy a new phone. I want the best phone I can get. If I hold out for an iphone 5 i'll likely get ios updates for it for the life of the phone. But I'm not really thrilled with the direction Apple has been headed, and am a lot more interested in how Android has caught up.
But If i buy an Android, there is a very real chance I might well be stuck with only official support for what it ships with. The reviewers gush that the Jellybean update is like getting a whole new phone; you might not say that the difference isn't that stark, but it seems to me that is.
(Bear in mind that if you dig back in my/. history, I was actually a proponent of Vista -- I recognized that it had issues, but I felt it was a VERY necessary step forward for microsoft with respect to the security model, UAC, etc. That adds some context to my Vista / 7 analogy above.
I know some people hated Vista as much as ME. For them perhaps an XP directly to 7 metaphor would would better... or not... I still see people clinging to XP for reasons I can't really fathom. We/. users rightfully relentlessly mocked Microsoft for the terrible security model of XP and previous versions. Vista, for all its shortcomings, was a crucial step in the right direction. Windows 7 took all that was right with Vista, and smoothed the rough edges off (and also benefited immensely from simply coming out "later", after a lot of the 3rd parties that make up the windows ecosystem finally caught up with the reality they needed to release software that worked with x64 and that worked as a limited user, etc.)
Yes, but the developer says, "Its not remotely ready for daily use yet". So, while its great that you can do it, and that you are enjoying it, I want official support, and the expectation that it will actually work instead of running into an issue and being told... "well what did you expect?"
If you've been able to use a 3G this whole time why is running a later version of Android vital?
Because I'm not dropping full price on a phone that can't run the best OS available the day I buy it. Its like buying a Vista laptop after windows 7 starts shipping, (or an OSX Lion laptop when Mountain Lion is out if you prefer an OSX analogy)... but instead of getting an upgrade coupon you get a non-committal statement that I'll be able to upgrade... at some point... maybe.
I guess my question is, what do you want from the upgrade?
Jellybean reviews have all been enthusiastic about the dramatic improvement to the smoothness of the user interface. That's something I value, and one of the criticisms I had about previous androids.
I've got a 3GS also, but am really at a crossroads. I bought the 3GS week one after the launch. At the time it was the exact phone I wanted. Now, though I'm torn... my 3GS screen just cracked and nothing is quite right.
No point in buying a 4S with the 5 around the corner. (Hell even if i wanted a 4S, waiting for the 5 and picking up the 4S on sale or gently used makes sense. But really.. I don't have a 4 or 4S precisely becuase they added nothing I wanted. And iphone 5 isn't looking to change that.
The Samsung Galaxy S3 is high on my list and well reviewed, but until they officially announce jellybean for it with a ship date... I'm holding out. I've been burned before on promised upgrades that never materialized. Jelly bean seems like enough of an improvement that I won't settle for for anything less.
And even the Lumia's -- I actually really like them and am even seriously consideriing one for my next phone, but with WinPhone 8 around the corner, and it already being announced that the existing lumia's won't be upgraded. Again... holding out.
Right now is just a terrible time to buy almost a smart phone, to the point I'm seriously considering getting the screen fixed on this one. I can hand it down to my daughter or something.
Slashdot Mirror
replying to you your "see your comment here" post:
No, I disagree. Here they are leveraging brand name recognition, but that is not abuse of monopoly.
The difference between WhamOS and Microsoft is name recognition, not desktop-monopoly. Same as Apple made ipad's rather than creating a shell corporation called Turnip and selling Tpads through it.
Leveraging brand name recognition is not 'abuse of monopoly'.
Its really no different than microsofts foray into consoles with the xbox. (Which I also note is locked down.)
Actually, there's no reason the OS shouldn't be able to turn Secure boot ON using ACPI. There is good reason the OS shouldn't be able to turn it OFF.
You make a good point there. I haven't heard that this is possible, but there's no fundamental reason why it couldn't or shouldn't be. Provided that once its on, it can't be turned off the same way.
Although it still requires that the Microsoft key be preloaded, and then I assume the OS could also check that a given key is there. Clearly the OS shouldn't be able to load a key in either.
I still think ts simpler and not unreasonable to ship enabled.
I figure a large number of users would just cancel that box because it would inevitably say something like "once you click yes you can't change it back again from inside the OS", and that would be too "scary" to enable.
Is that a legal requirement for monopoly abuse? That the monopolist does something someone without a monopoly couldn't normally do?
Pretty much, yes, that's essentially the definition of "abuse of monopoly power".
Because they can't just click "yes".
They have to reboot the PC, press delete or f12 or whatever at the appropriate second, go into uefi ("bios") and locate the secure boot setting and choose to enable it. Save changes, and reboot.
And that's if the key is already pre-loaded. If its not... its more complicated.
If the OS could turn secure boot on or off from a popup on your windows desktop then it wouldn't be secure boot at all.
And neither Google nor Apple have OS monopolies, nor are they offering the same OS on desktops and tablets.
Fair enough, but:
ios is related to OSX
Android is related to ChromeOS
So what about Windows 8 ARM vs Windows 8 x86? Are they really the same OS? The ARM version is missing major features, and the two editions can't run any of the same programs due to the architecture difference. Is the ARM OS really the "same"? Or could it be considered a different product?
Microsoft is seeing the writing on the wall, namely that people are ditching their desktops and laptops for tablets.
Yes, yes, but people who still need computers will still buy computers. There's a lot of people out there with a laptop that just need a tablet... but there's a lot of people out there who need an actual computer.
So they are trying to leverage their (near) desktop monopoly into a tablet monopoly, namely by trying to flood the market with Surface tablets and locking down the hardware so that you can run nothing other than their software on it.
I agree they may well be trying to flood the tablet market with locked down surface tablets, but I don't see them leveraging their desktop monopoly to do it.
Yes, that is an attempt to gain a monopoly
No more so than ipad's are apple's attempt to gain a monopoly.
if that situation had existed for x86 hardware, we wouldn't have Linux or any open operating systems.
I don't necessarily disagree. But Microsoft isn't leveraging their existing monopoly to try and lock down the tablet market. They probably are trying to lock down the tablet market, but they aren't using the desktop monopoly to do it.
Furthermore, if there is nothing to be gained from it, as you argue, why doesn't Microsoft leave it up to vendors, just like they do with x86 hardware?
Same reason Apple does it?
Now, can you kindly tell me how any of that would be relevant if I should want to install Linux on an ARM based tablet?
Yes MS's insistence there is an issue that we can all agree is undesireable, but the point is it has nothing to do with their desktop monopoly. They aren't leveraging their monopoly to make that happen.
Most of the exisiting non-Microsoft ARM devices are also locked down*... clearly one doesn't need a monopoly to leverage to make that happen.
(* And its just as undesirable that ipad's and many android tablets are locked out..)
Until that day when the user can't.
Yes, i agree completely with you on this. However, that doesn't mean we should object to -this-. We should object to -that-. We should even start objecting to -that- now, and get regulation in place to ensure -that- can't happen.
But there is nothing wrong with -this-.
Yes its a "hit" but its a necessary one and a reasonable one, and microsoft isn't doing it with malice towards other operating systems, but merely to check the spread of rootkits etc against windows.
Hell, the fact that Microsoft is even allowing linux distros to be signed against their key suggests how far they are willing to go to accomodate easy 'other os'.
I'm not saying distros should take advantage of it in general... installing the distro key manually i think is the better solution overall; but it is nice to have this as an option, especially for LiveCDs.
Not unattended nor without messing with the BIOS configuration. It is just one more barrier added by the incumbent to distort the playing field.
No, its there to stop root kits.
The barrier to other OSes is a problem, but to use a car analogy, its like buying a car and the wheels have a lug nut lock because theft of wheels has been a growing problem.
The aftermarket rim vendors get upset because its a barrier to easily installing new wheels. And this is true. and its just a matter of unlocking the nut to change the wheel. Sure, its one extra step, and thus a 'barrier' but its dishonest to claim the OEM did it to lock out aftermarket wheels. -- The owner the car was given the key for crying out loud.
And in order to gain a monopoly on that new platform, they lock it down there.
How does locking it down gain them a monopoly in a new market?
If people want an android arm device they buy one...
If they want an apple arm device they buy one...
The fact that you can't install ios or android on your arm tablet that came preloaded with windows 8 is hardly going to gain them a monopoly.
None of these companies have a desktop monopoly, hence it doesn't matter what they do.
Microsoft isn't leveraging its monopoly at all though. If they told OEMs they could only sell Windows 8 ARM devices if they wanted to sell windows 8 desktops -that- would be an example of leveraging their marketshare.
Requiring that windows 8 arm 'appliance' devices be locked down, the same as most any other arm appliance device is not an abuse of monopoly.
so I'm only speaking hypothetically, but Microsoft could use their monopoly on desktop OS:es as leverage when they negotiate with OEM manufacturers, and get them to lock down ARM devices.
Apple, Samsung, HTC, Motorola, all have locked down bootloaders on devices... clearly you don't need a desktop monopoly for leverage here.
But it's a simple point of fact to state that it is using a monopoly position in one area of a market to abuse another.
How on earth do you see the two linked?
To "abuse a monopoly position" would require that one need a monopoly in order to do something else. Ie... only Microsoft could abuse its desktop monopoly to force internet explorer onto every desktop. Opera can't put its browser on every desktop no matter how badly it wants to because it doesn't have that desktop monopoly.
So how does having a desktop monopoly facilitate Microsoft's move on ARM? Apple has locked down all its ARM devices.HTC, Samsung, Motorola are all selling ARM devices with locked bootloaders...
Indeed it seems any player in the market can and routinely does lock down the bootloaders on its smartphones and tablets.
So explain to me, how exactly does Microsoft's desktop monopoly enable them to do something other manufacturers can't do? Because it seems to me that Microsoft is no different than the already established players in the ARM smartphone and tablet players.
Clearly, my bad. I'd hope the sentiment was clear from the over all post, but for the sake of correcting it, the "does" in the first quoted sentence should be "does not" or "doesn't".
Which really isn't a problem
The "problem" is that we want point to point communications (no middleman) that aren't a pain to make work.
Your solution doesn't seem to address this.
- for instance using asterisk as a ZRTP passthrough. In theory this should cost ~$3/mo for most people to use if both ends are correctly configured.
We still have a middleman (to whom are we paying $3/mo).
We still have to configure 'both ends' - this is the "pain to make work" that end users don't want.
Point to point communications with no middleman are definitely possible, but realistically aren't practical on the internet as it is.
Honestly, even with ipv6 and a global address space its not going to be easy enough -- even without NAT the edge routers in every household and business and wifi hotspot etc are going to have to let incoming calls in to your device. And that's just not ever going to happen. There is ALWAYS going to be a middleman... the only question is who.
The best we can really hope for is a decentralized non-commercial p2p cluster of middlemen.
And if you read that document the FSF advocates options b) and c) in my previous post. (installing their own keys, signing their own code). This is something users are free to do without having to trust in microsoft nor interact with microsoft, nor "beg" for licenses from microsoft.
In other words, the FSF, unlike you, recognizes that users can install other OSes without Microsoft.
What about ARM?
What about it?
Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly in ARM devices (tablets and smartphones). Their competitors in Apple and even many Androids have restricted boot to their signed binaries.
We all agree that its not the situation we want, and we all agree we should demand the right to the keys to our devices (which we currently have on x86).
But it is absurd to suggest Microsoft is abusing its monopoly position in the ARM device market.
), but it doesn't change the fact Canonical and Redhat were forced to buy a license *from Microsoft* or else their OSes would not run.
That is not true.
Their OSes will run just fine provided any of the following are done:
a) the user logs into UEFI and disables secure boot
b) the user logs into UEFI and installs a distro key
c) the user logs into UEFI and installs their own key and signs the distro themselves.
d) the distro provider works with the manufacturer to have their key pre-loaded the same as microsofts.
Microsoft (currently) does prevent or even hinder any one of those alternatives on x86.
Canonical and Red Hat noted that a & b require at least a nomimal effort by the end user. (c requires a fair bit of effort for the end user) And that d required a substantial effort on their part.
So they chose "e) sign our distros with the MS key" that Microsoft already took the effort to have preloaded so that our users don't need to take the nominal step of disabling secure boot or of installing their own keys.
"That is called restraint-of-trade and it is VERY clearly a violation of the Sherman Antitrust "...
No its not.
"now they are actively blocking other OSes from Opera/Google/other OSes from running (unless they beg MS for a license)"
You don't need a license from microsoft. The end user can disable secure boot. The end user can install their own keys. The distro can approach the hardware manufacturer and have their own keys preloaded along side microsofts.
Microsoft isn't preventing anyone from doing anything, and you do not need to interact with microsoft at all to install other OSes.
Please COMPREHEND the above before replying or commenting on the subject further.
Well, yes, that's all great...
But the problem you need to solve is "paying for a burger with less effort than using a debit / credit card" while not being less secure.
Your solution passes on being more secure, but fails dismally at being easier.
Umm, how about no thanks? It's time for the programmer community to develop easy to use, robust, strongly encrypted, point to point programs.
And that will happen right after ipv6 becomes standard and NAT goes away. point to point is pretty tricky to make 'just' work in our currented "ipv4 nearly everyone is behind a NAT system".
Realistically, a middle man is going to be here for a long while yet.
You are obviously the kinda guy who wouldn't have felt the need to upgrade Vista to Windows 7
"wouldn't have"? I sure would have.
Why do you assert that I wouldn't have?
Based on the fact that I still have an iphone 3GS?
My iphone 3GS has ios 5.1.1 the current version of ios.
I absolutely would upgrade the OS if I saw any advantage to it.
Now, the hardware? Its true I didn't buy a 4 or 4S, but in Canada I was stuck in a 3 year contract for the iphone, and that's just run out recently.
The major exclusive features they added on the 4 and 4S were not compelling to me. Siri? Facetime? I doubt I could think of things a phone could have that I could care less about.
Now, the base hardware itself -- faster CPU, and higher resolution screen have value to me... but not enough to buy the phone outright in the middle of a contract.
So here I am at the end of a contract, looking to buy a new phone. I want the best phone I can get. If I hold out for an iphone 5 i'll likely get ios updates for it for the life of the phone. But I'm not really thrilled with the direction Apple has been headed, and am a lot more interested in how Android has caught up.
But If i buy an Android, there is a very real chance I might well be stuck with only official support for what it ships with. The reviewers gush that the Jellybean update is like getting a whole new phone; you might not say that the difference isn't that stark, but it seems to me that is.
(Bear in mind that if you dig back in my /. history, I was actually a proponent of Vista -- I recognized that it had issues, but I felt it was a VERY necessary step forward for microsoft with respect to the security model, UAC, etc. That adds some context to my Vista / 7 analogy above.
I know some people hated Vista as much as ME. For them perhaps an XP directly to 7 metaphor would would better... or not... I still see people clinging to XP for reasons I can't really fathom. We /. users rightfully relentlessly mocked Microsoft for the terrible security model of XP and previous versions. Vista, for all its shortcomings, was a crucial step in the right direction. Windows 7 took all that was right with Vista, and smoothed the rough edges off (and also benefited immensely from simply coming out "later", after a lot of the 3rd parties that make up the windows ecosystem finally caught up with the reality they needed to release software that worked with x64 and that worked as a limited user, etc.)
The better plan is to sue Microsoft for abuse of their monopoly.
Assuming its established that they still have a monopoly.
How exactly are they abusing it?
Yes, but the developer says, "Its not remotely ready for daily use yet". So, while its great that you can do it, and that you are enjoying it, I want official support, and the expectation that it will actually work instead of running into an issue and being told... "well what did you expect?"
If you've been able to use a 3G this whole time why is running a later version of Android vital?
Because I'm not dropping full price on a phone that can't run the best OS available the day I buy it. Its like buying a Vista laptop after windows 7 starts shipping, (or an OSX Lion laptop when Mountain Lion is out if you prefer an OSX analogy)... but instead of getting an upgrade coupon you get a non-committal statement that I'll be able to upgrade... at some point... maybe.
I guess my question is, what do you want from the upgrade?
Jellybean reviews have all been enthusiastic about the dramatic improvement to the smoothness of the user interface. That's something I value, and one of the criticisms I had about previous androids.
I've got a 3GS also, but am really at a crossroads. I bought the 3GS week one after the launch. At the time it was the exact phone I wanted. Now, though I'm torn... my 3GS screen just cracked and nothing is quite right.
No point in buying a 4S with the 5 around the corner. (Hell even if i wanted a 4S, waiting for the 5 and picking up the 4S on sale or gently used makes sense. But really.. I don't have a 4 or 4S precisely becuase they added nothing I wanted. And iphone 5 isn't looking to change that.
The Samsung Galaxy S3 is high on my list and well reviewed, but until they officially announce jellybean for it with a ship date... I'm holding out. I've been burned before on promised upgrades that never materialized. Jelly bean seems like enough of an improvement that I won't settle for for anything less.
And even the Lumia's -- I actually really like them and am even seriously consideriing one for my next phone, but with WinPhone 8 around the corner, and it already being announced that the existing lumia's won't be upgraded. Again... holding out.
Right now is just a terrible time to buy almost a smart phone, to the point I'm seriously considering getting the screen fixed on this one. I can hand it down to my daughter or something.