3 ms·

> The only way they can get more of your money is to sell you a new phone which they hope to do between 1-2 years from now. Which is why I would absolutely lov

by usrusr 10y ago

> The only way they can get more of your money is to sell you a new phone which they hope to do between 1-2 years from now. Which is why I would absolutely love to see a hardware vendor adopt paid updates, with a mission statement along these lines: "we cannot believably promise a reliable progression of software updates, because too many before is have tried and failed. What we can do, however, is rewrite the rules so that we will have a much stronger incentive to follow through than or predecessors".

Lawtonfogle 10y ago
Could that back fire? There are cases where humans judge taking no action because it avoids costs as inherently better than taking action to bring in profit even when others in general are better off. I could see a lot of people getting mad at being charged for updates which cost money who wouldn't get mad when there are no updates because the company doesn't want to lose money making free updates. It's almost like a section of society judges not helping as better than helping for some price, even though anyone who doesn't want to pay is no worse off than if they were never given an option. I see this trend outside of business as well.
- usrusr 10y ago
  It would certainly not be good business for a consumerism-centered brand like Samsung and it would even be suicidal for Apple to suddenly start charging for updates. But for an Android brand built around sustainability, like e.g. Fairphone, it could be a considerable credibility gain if they replaced a promise of future gifts with a proposal for future business. No matter how updates happen, if they do the effort will be paid for with money coming from the customer, one way or the other. Any payment scheme other than pay on delivery requires trust and that specific form of trust has evaporated a long time ago.
devenvdev 10y ago
Funny, today we were talking with my co-workers about the new Samsung ads... "Samsung A5 - a new Samsung every year" Samsung A5 - more than you need" Rediculous...

by usrusr 10y ago

Lawtonfogle 10y ago

Could that back fire? There are cases where humans judge taking no action because it avoids costs as inherently better than taking action to bring in profit even when others in general are better off. I could see a lot of people getting mad at being charged for updates which cost money who wouldn't get mad when there are no updates because the company doesn't want to lose money making free updates. It's almost like a section of society judges not helping as better than helping for some price, even though anyone who doesn't want to pay is no worse off than if they were never given an option. I see this trend outside of business as well.

usrusr 10y ago
It would certainly not be good business for a consumerism-centered brand like Samsung and it would even be suicidal for Apple to suddenly start charging for updates. But for an Android brand built around sustainability, like e.g. Fairphone, it could be a considerable credibility gain if they replaced a promise of future gifts with a proposal for future business. No matter how updates happen, if they do the effort will be paid for with money coming from the customer, one way or the other. Any payment scheme other than pay on delivery requires trust and that specific form of trust has evaporated a long time ago.

devenvdev 10y ago

Funny, today we were talking with my co-workers about the new Samsung ads... "Samsung A5 - a new Samsung every year" Samsung A5 - more than you need" Rediculous...