6 ms·

Honestly, even after years of following Android, I still don't understand what the carriers even do to the ROMs. It's not like it needs special proprietary soft

by Zee2 9y ago

Honestly, even after years of following Android, I still don't understand what the carriers even do to the ROMs. It's not like it needs special proprietary software tweaks just to connect to an ordinary GSM band. And it's also not like I get any kind of visual voicemail, WiFi calling, etc baked directly into the system either. Those carrier features are usually still separate apps, anyway. Honestly, what are they doing, and why does it take them multiple months to do it?

klondike_ 9y ago
Carriers generally have deals with other companies for preinstalled apps which may or may not still be active by the time it comes around for an update. Also they have to test the devices, but considering the sheer number of Android devices they probably prioritize new high end devices first. This problem is made worse on Verizon and Sprint which use CDMA 3G networks, as opposed to the worldwide GSM standard. Also this could be a result of marketing as well. You can get the latest Android on a new device, or you can wait an indeterminate amount of time (a few months to never) to get a free update on your old device.
- fabrice_d 9y ago
  This is about cost: updates sometimes fail (incredible, I know), and carriers are the first place people go to get their phones back in working order. This kind of support is quite costly so carriers don't push too hard for updates to happen.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    Every fifth security vulnerability in Android should cause the radio to spam reconnect attempts or similarly onorous behavior. I imagine carrier responses would look a lot different then.
  - kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
    They want you renting a new phone from them every year. Dragging their feet on updates shifts sales to their newer lineup.
    - josteink 9y ago
      But if a carrier has the nerve to actually block updates to my phone and I find out, I'll switch my phone to another carrier the next day. What's in it for them?
      - snoyberg 9y ago
        Most people don't think about such things when buying (renting) a new phone. If you do consider it, you're an exception to the rule.
        josteink 9y ago
        What do you mean rent? I buy my phone. It's mine. I can put it on any network I like.
        Karunamon 9y ago
        You certainly can't put whatever software on it that you like. They go well out of their way to ensure that.
  - josteink 9y ago
    > carriers are the first place people go to get their phones back in working order That only applies to phone bought from carriers. Most people buy them in electronic shops where they buy tvs and laptops and stuff (since that allows you to get the best deal any carrier can offer, and not just be restricted to one).
    - csydas 9y ago
      This is half true and I think it falls neatly along generational lines, with exceptions for "really good deals". Most iPhone owners became first time AT&T customers when the iPhone came out. When Android hit the market, people went to their carrier because before this more or less was how you had to do it. More people are just buying whatever phone and sticking a simcard in it but there is still a huge number who live by what their carrier gives them.
      - josteink 9y ago
        > More people are just buying whatever phone and sticking a simcard in it but there is still a huge number who live by what their carrier gives them. Interestingly enough I see that as the wrong way around. Going to a carrier specific-store is also guaranteed to offered me inferior choice both in phones and subscriptions. What's in it for me as a customer? My electronic store is giving me the phone and carrier which provides me with the best deal. I have no reason to give a carrier, a transparent transport network, any sort of loyalty. I don't have a "my carrier" which I care about. I do however have a "my phone", and I care about that deeply.
- josteink 9y ago
  > Also they have to test the devices Why? The whole point of GSM is that carrier and phone can (and should) be entirely disconnected, decoupled and only connected through the means of whatever SIM the user puts in his phone. The notion that a carrier needs to be involved in the making of a phone makes about as much sense as if my ISP needed to test and "approve" what Ethernet hardware I use at home. It's frankly none of their business. > This problem is made worse on Verizon and Sprint which use CDMA So don't use them, just like you wouldn't use an ISP which doesn't speak IP.
  - int_19h 9y ago
    Pretty much any argument for network/device tie-in is fallacious on its face for the simple reason that there are many countries out there which don't have that arrangement. And yet the phones there work fine, and so do the networks.
  - mmcnl 9y ago
    It is none of their business, but they desperately want a piece of the pie so they brand their phones (and probably sell them at a small discount - this is the value proposition here). Branding also results in shifting responsibilities from OEM manufacturer to carrier with regard to testing and stuff. Also, plenty ISPs actually do sell branded wireless routers with branded firmware, so it's not uncommon practice in other neighboring industries.

by Zee2 9y ago

klondike_ 9y ago

Carriers generally have deals with other companies for preinstalled apps which may or may not still be active by the time it comes around for an update. Also they have to test the devices, but considering the sheer number of Android devices they probably prioritize new high end devices first. This problem is made worse on Verizon and Sprint which use CDMA 3G networks, as opposed to the worldwide GSM standard. Also this could be a result of marketing as well. You can get the latest Android on a new device, or you can wait an indeterminate amount of time (a few months to never) to get a free update on your old device.

fabrice_d 9y ago
This is about cost: updates sometimes fail (incredible, I know), and carriers are the first place people go to get their phones back in working order. This kind of support is quite costly so carriers don't push too hard for updates to happen.
- ethbro 9y ago
  Every fifth security vulnerability in Android should cause the radio to spam reconnect attempts or similarly onorous behavior. I imagine carrier responses would look a lot different then.
- kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
  They want you renting a new phone from them every year. Dragging their feet on updates shifts sales to their newer lineup.
  - josteink 9y ago
    But if a carrier has the nerve to actually block updates to my phone and I find out, I'll switch my phone to another carrier the next day. What's in it for them?
    - snoyberg 9y ago
      Most people don't think about such things when buying (renting) a new phone. If you do consider it, you're an exception to the rule.
      - josteink 9y ago
        What do you mean rent? I buy my phone. It's mine. I can put it on any network I like.
        Karunamon 9y ago
        You certainly can't put whatever software on it that you like. They go well out of their way to ensure that.
- josteink 9y ago
  > carriers are the first place people go to get their phones back in working order That only applies to phone bought from carriers. Most people buy them in electronic shops where they buy tvs and laptops and stuff (since that allows you to get the best deal any carrier can offer, and not just be restricted to one).
  - csydas 9y ago
    This is half true and I think it falls neatly along generational lines, with exceptions for "really good deals". Most iPhone owners became first time AT&T customers when the iPhone came out. When Android hit the market, people went to their carrier because before this more or less was how you had to do it. More people are just buying whatever phone and sticking a simcard in it but there is still a huge number who live by what their carrier gives them.
    - josteink 9y ago
      > More people are just buying whatever phone and sticking a simcard in it but there is still a huge number who live by what their carrier gives them. Interestingly enough I see that as the wrong way around. Going to a carrier specific-store is also guaranteed to offered me inferior choice both in phones and subscriptions. What's in it for me as a customer? My electronic store is giving me the phone and carrier which provides me with the best deal. I have no reason to give a carrier, a transparent transport network, any sort of loyalty. I don't have a "my carrier" which I care about. I do however have a "my phone", and I care about that deeply.
josteink 9y ago
> Also they have to test the devices Why? The whole point of GSM is that carrier and phone can (and should) be entirely disconnected, decoupled and only connected through the means of whatever SIM the user puts in his phone. The notion that a carrier needs to be involved in the making of a phone makes about as much sense as if my ISP needed to test and "approve" what Ethernet hardware I use at home. It's frankly none of their business. > This problem is made worse on Verizon and Sprint which use CDMA So don't use them, just like you wouldn't use an ISP which doesn't speak IP.
- int_19h 9y ago
  Pretty much any argument for network/device tie-in is fallacious on its face for the simple reason that there are many countries out there which don't have that arrangement. And yet the phones there work fine, and so do the networks.
- mmcnl 9y ago
  It is none of their business, but they desperately want a piece of the pie so they brand their phones (and probably sell them at a small discount - this is the value proposition here). Branding also results in shifting responsibilities from OEM manufacturer to carrier with regard to testing and stuff. Also, plenty ISPs actually do sell branded wireless routers with branded firmware, so it's not uncommon practice in other neighboring industries.