7 ms·

Verizon will control Android updates for Google Pixel phones it sells

39 points by monsieurpng 10y ago

jaflo 10y ago
Interesting that this is an AMP link, loads faster than the regular page (http://www.theverge.com//2016/10/6/13191614/verizon-google-pixel-android-updates http://www.theverge.com//2016/10/6/13191614/verizon-google-p...)
- berberous 10y ago
  What is this AMP garbage? I've noticed it everywhere in the past few weeks and it has been really annoying. Trying to copy/paste Gothamist links on mobile to send to other people was an exercise in frustration. Had to request the desktop to site to get the real URL and send that for it to work.
  - rch 10y ago
    I've had the opposite experience, and I'd anticipate clicking on ever fewer non-amp links over time.
  - thezilch 10y ago
    https://www.ampproject.org/ https://www.ampproject.org/
- dingo_bat 10y ago
  But scrolls so bad that I still read the normal page. Thanks for the link.
0xFFC 10y ago
What is update path/policy for iPhones? Do Verizon sell iPhones too? Do they control it's update too? Or iPhones gets their update directly from Apple? (I am only aware of noncontract iphones, which do get update regularly from Apple itself.) P.S. I do not live in USA. I am asking because this is huge mistake for Google. With their new branding I hoped they will deliver updates to pixel line as smooth as Chromebooks. But it seems nothing changed in regard to Android update problem.
- crooked-v 10y ago
  Apple has 100% control over all updates to their phones.
- ecopoesis 10y ago
  Verizon does sell iPhones. They do not control iOS updates on them.
- hossbeast 10y ago
  Of course, you can just buy your pixel from Google
  - 0xFFC 10y ago
    But I thought buying from Verizon would cost less, because of the contract. Am I right? My point is people who will buy phone for 50$ (for example for two year contract) from Verizon will get direct update from Apple (which improves overall health of the its ecosystem), but pixel ones don't. I think this is shortcoming. So if you want fast updates like iPhone, you have to buy noncontract from Google itself. Do you see what is my point?
    - dquigley 10y ago
      It used to be the case that you'd get the phone subsidized by your service plan from Verizon, but not any longer. Verizon and the other major US carriers stopped subsidizing phones in the past few years. For me the biggest reason I wanted to buy through Verizon was they were offering a promotional $200 trade in value for my Note 4. For some people selling their phone separately would be a better deal though, so even that won't matter.
      - 0xFFC 10y ago
        Thank you, my information was outdated.
      - PhantomGremlin 10y ago
        Verizon and the other major US carriers stopped subsidizing phones in the past few years. Except that Verizon just started subsidies again last month: https://www.verizonwireless.com/deals-landing/ https://www.verizonwireless.com/deals-landing/ Only they disguise it somewhat. Not sure if that shows up properly. But in September an iPhone 6 was "worth" $650 as a trade-in. As of yesterday it was still worth $650. Today it seems to be $100 less: Trade in and get iPhone 7 for $99.99. Get up to $550 savings. It's clearly a subsidy because an iPhone 6 isn't worth anywhere near $650 (or even $550) on the open market. Heck, I had an old iPhone 5C lying around that, last month, Verizon gave me $400 credit for toward an iPhone 7. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck ...
mimg 10y ago
Back when I had a Windows Mobile smartphone the carrier I had controlled the updates. Upgrading from winmo 6 to 6.1 took months. I think allowing carriers to control updates will negatively impact user experience.
bkjelden 10y ago
Will the phones sold by Verizon be a different SKU? There are some phones, the LG G4 being one I believe, which are available in unlocked SKUs that technically work on Verizon's network, but don't have access to as many cellular bands and therefore don't get as good of signal/speeds.
raman325 10y ago
FWIW, Verizon does extensive internal testing of OS updates. When I was there, as an engineer, we would be given phones, and anytime there was a new update, we would receive the updates first, use it daily for a couple of weeks, and report what we found. There were multiple tiers of internal user trials before the updates were greenlit, and there were many potential OS updates that never made it to public because of the problems we found. Verizon may slow down updates to consumer devices, but I always felt like it was for good reason.
- xbmcuser 10y ago
  Do they do the same for Apple devices ?
  - raman325 10y ago
    I don't remember what we did for Apple devices, but I'm pretty sure they (Apple) had complete control over the update framework, including the updates themselves. EDIT: edited for clarity
    - xbmcuser 10y ago
      Why is that personally I feel it is so that they can put all the carrier bloatware into the Android roms. I like that here in Singapore carriers are not allowed by law to lock phones to their networks or put uninstallable bloatware. So carriers can put the bloatware in but I can get rid of it easily as not in the system rom and we are allowed to sell the device that we get thorough contracts.
      - raman325 10y ago
        Apple had more negotiating power than any other cell phone manufacturer had in the past. The first iPhone that supported the Verizon network was the iPhone 4. At that point it had already been proven to be wildly successful, and it was one of the few things that people could knock Verizon about (aside from price). I'm pretty sure Apple held all the cards in the negotiations to get the iPhone 4 on the Verizon network. Contrast that with every Android OS based manufacturer: 1) The majority of them were companies that had been working with cellular providers for years already. They probably already had agreements in place with providers about how things would go (bloatware, extensive testing, etc.). 2) They were competing with each other for market share because the OS wasn't a differentiating factor (their bloatware/cosmetic overhauls were weak attempts to establish software differentiation). 3) Verizon made a big investment in Android with the Droid line, providing marketing, branding, etc. Any other manufacturers that were building Android phones had to compete with these devices and had to market on their own. Verizon had all of the cards. It's slowly changing, but it boils down to: 1) Manufacturers trying to compete (they often add plenty of their own bloatware) 2) Verizon using a model they're familiar with from the feature phone era and manufacturers being used to the carriers having control
gumby 10y ago
Gratuitous screwing of customers aside, I'm trying to figure out what the benefit for Verizon is. Do they get a lot of customer support calls from people who don't know how to use the phone, and need time to train the call center staff? Or is it simply their reflexive control-freakery? Clearly they survive a lack of control from iOS.
- zigzigzag 10y ago
  I think this is one of those "trust is earned" cases. Google has, in the past, pushed out updates to phones in ways that bypassed carrier certification and then broke things (e.g. in the early days of Market auto updates). Because people buy the phone from the carrier, if it breaks the carrier gets to pick up the pieces. This is especially true because whilst Apple has extensive on-the-street support infrastructure and everyone knows if you have a problem with an Apple product you take it to the Apple Store and they fix it, no questions asked, this is not true of other phone manufacturers. The carrier provides the (very expensive) in person support. Verizon may simply not trust Google's QA process, or put another way, they institutionally don't trust OEM QA processes and to make an exception for that requires a very good reason beyond just "Google is cool".
Yaggo 10y ago
For a moment I thought Google will become Apple's competitor.

39 points by monsieurpng 10y ago

jaflo 10y ago

Interesting that this is an AMP link, loads faster than the regular page (http://www.theverge.com//2016/10/6/13191614/verizon-google-pixel-android-updates http://www.theverge.com//2016/10/6/13191614/verizon-google-p...)

berberous 10y ago
What is this AMP garbage? I've noticed it everywhere in the past few weeks and it has been really annoying. Trying to copy/paste Gothamist links on mobile to send to other people was an exercise in frustration. Had to request the desktop to site to get the real URL and send that for it to work.
- rch 10y ago
  I've had the opposite experience, and I'd anticipate clicking on ever fewer non-amp links over time.
- thezilch 10y ago
  https://www.ampproject.org/ https://www.ampproject.org/
dingo_bat 10y ago
But scrolls so bad that I still read the normal page. Thanks for the link.

0xFFC 10y ago

What is update path/policy for iPhones? Do Verizon sell iPhones too? Do they control it's update too? Or iPhones gets their update directly from Apple? (I am only aware of noncontract iphones, which do get update regularly from Apple itself.) P.S. I do not live in USA. I am asking because this is huge mistake for Google. With their new branding I hoped they will deliver updates to pixel line as smooth as Chromebooks. But it seems nothing changed in regard to Android update problem.

crooked-v 10y ago
Apple has 100% control over all updates to their phones.
ecopoesis 10y ago
Verizon does sell iPhones. They do not control iOS updates on them.
hossbeast 10y ago
Of course, you can just buy your pixel from Google
- 0xFFC 10y ago
  But I thought buying from Verizon would cost less, because of the contract. Am I right? My point is people who will buy phone for 50$ (for example for two year contract) from Verizon will get direct update from Apple (which improves overall health of the its ecosystem), but pixel ones don't. I think this is shortcoming. So if you want fast updates like iPhone, you have to buy noncontract from Google itself. Do you see what is my point?
  - dquigley 10y ago
    It used to be the case that you'd get the phone subsidized by your service plan from Verizon, but not any longer. Verizon and the other major US carriers stopped subsidizing phones in the past few years. For me the biggest reason I wanted to buy through Verizon was they were offering a promotional $200 trade in value for my Note 4. For some people selling their phone separately would be a better deal though, so even that won't matter.
    - 0xFFC 10y ago
      Thank you, my information was outdated.
    - PhantomGremlin 10y ago
      Verizon and the other major US carriers stopped subsidizing phones in the past few years. Except that Verizon just started subsidies again last month: https://www.verizonwireless.com/deals-landing/ https://www.verizonwireless.com/deals-landing/ Only they disguise it somewhat. Not sure if that shows up properly. But in September an iPhone 6 was "worth" $650 as a trade-in. As of yesterday it was still worth $650. Today it seems to be $100 less: Trade in and get iPhone 7 for $99.99. Get up to $550 savings. It's clearly a subsidy because an iPhone 6 isn't worth anywhere near $650 (or even $550) on the open market. Heck, I had an old iPhone 5C lying around that, last month, Verizon gave me $400 credit for toward an iPhone 7. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck ...

mimg 10y ago

Back when I had a Windows Mobile smartphone the carrier I had controlled the updates. Upgrading from winmo 6 to 6.1 took months. I think allowing carriers to control updates will negatively impact user experience.

bkjelden 10y ago

Will the phones sold by Verizon be a different SKU? There are some phones, the LG G4 being one I believe, which are available in unlocked SKUs that technically work on Verizon's network, but don't have access to as many cellular bands and therefore don't get as good of signal/speeds.

raman325 10y ago

FWIW, Verizon does extensive internal testing of OS updates. When I was there, as an engineer, we would be given phones, and anytime there was a new update, we would receive the updates first, use it daily for a couple of weeks, and report what we found. There were multiple tiers of internal user trials before the updates were greenlit, and there were many potential OS updates that never made it to public because of the problems we found. Verizon may slow down updates to consumer devices, but I always felt like it was for good reason.

xbmcuser 10y ago
Do they do the same for Apple devices ?
- raman325 10y ago
  I don't remember what we did for Apple devices, but I'm pretty sure they (Apple) had complete control over the update framework, including the updates themselves. EDIT: edited for clarity
  - xbmcuser 10y ago
    Why is that personally I feel it is so that they can put all the carrier bloatware into the Android roms. I like that here in Singapore carriers are not allowed by law to lock phones to their networks or put uninstallable bloatware. So carriers can put the bloatware in but I can get rid of it easily as not in the system rom and we are allowed to sell the device that we get thorough contracts.
    - raman325 10y ago
      Apple had more negotiating power than any other cell phone manufacturer had in the past. The first iPhone that supported the Verizon network was the iPhone 4. At that point it had already been proven to be wildly successful, and it was one of the few things that people could knock Verizon about (aside from price). I'm pretty sure Apple held all the cards in the negotiations to get the iPhone 4 on the Verizon network. Contrast that with every Android OS based manufacturer: 1) The majority of them were companies that had been working with cellular providers for years already. They probably already had agreements in place with providers about how things would go (bloatware, extensive testing, etc.). 2) They were competing with each other for market share because the OS wasn't a differentiating factor (their bloatware/cosmetic overhauls were weak attempts to establish software differentiation). 3) Verizon made a big investment in Android with the Droid line, providing marketing, branding, etc. Any other manufacturers that were building Android phones had to compete with these devices and had to market on their own. Verizon had all of the cards. It's slowly changing, but it boils down to: 1) Manufacturers trying to compete (they often add plenty of their own bloatware) 2) Verizon using a model they're familiar with from the feature phone era and manufacturers being used to the carriers having control

gumby 10y ago

Gratuitous screwing of customers aside, I'm trying to figure out what the benefit for Verizon is. Do they get a lot of customer support calls from people who don't know how to use the phone, and need time to train the call center staff? Or is it simply their reflexive control-freakery? Clearly they survive a lack of control from iOS.

zigzigzag 10y ago
I think this is one of those "trust is earned" cases. Google has, in the past, pushed out updates to phones in ways that bypassed carrier certification and then broke things (e.g. in the early days of Market auto updates). Because people buy the phone from the carrier, if it breaks the carrier gets to pick up the pieces. This is especially true because whilst Apple has extensive on-the-street support infrastructure and everyone knows if you have a problem with an Apple product you take it to the Apple Store and they fix it, no questions asked, this is not true of other phone manufacturers. The carrier provides the (very expensive) in person support. Verizon may simply not trust Google's QA process, or put another way, they institutionally don't trust OEM QA processes and to make an exception for that requires a very good reason beyond just "Google is cool".

Yaggo 10y ago

For a moment I thought Google will become Apple's competitor.