3 ms·
>Contrast that with Android, which Google continually updates, and which is then automatically updated on consumer's phones. I thought this was weak, given how
by metageek 16y ago
>Contrast that with Android, which Google continually updates, and which is then automatically updated on consumer's phones.
I thought this was weak, given how long it can take for an Android update to reach some phones. My wife has a Motorola Backflip. It was released 8 months ago with Android 1.5, which was then 11 months old. Sometime this quarter it's supposed to get 2.1, which is already 10 months old.
If MS wanted to go to a continuous update model, they could probably do better than Android does, since there's a lot more homogeneity in PCs than in phones.
- rbanffy 16y agoThe problem with Android is the phone manufacturers. The more they customize the base software, the longer it takes for updates to arrive. There is also an incentive not to update - you'll end up buying another phone.
- metageek 16y agoYes, I know. My point is that MS wouldn't have anywhere near that much trouble, since they exert more control over the PC vendors.
- rbanffy 16y agoThere are very few WinMo phones that have upgrades. If this would be as easy as you imply, phone OS upgrades would be more common. Phone manufacturers prefer you buy another phone instead of upgrading yours. The only reason iPhones allow software upgrades is because Apple wants you to perceive them as high-value items instead of disposable ones (like most phones are). Making upgrades easy for the manufacturer would not help much. What would help is a clear separation of OS and application layers that could be upgraded independently. In this way, the core OS would be the hardware specific part and the rest of the platform could become user-upgradable.