3 ms·

The conflicting interests issue is really a problem in the Android space. As has been shown time and time again, vendors really don't want the burden of keeping

by ergo98 16y ago

The conflicting interests issue is really a problem in the Android space. As has been shown time and time again, vendors really don't want the burden of keeping your handset up to date forever because there is nothing in it for them, aside from perhaps avoiding too much negative press. Naturally people are going to compare it to iOS, where updates are free and rapidly disseminated. The difference there is that there definitely is something in it for Apple -- they're getting a cut of every app you buy, every song you download, etc. They're a middleman, so it's just a cost of doing business. I wish we could get to a point where Android updates cost money. I would happily pay $30 or whatever for each major update if it motivated the vendor to have an interest in keeping it up to date.

mindslight 16y ago
> I would happily pay $30 or whatever for each major update if it motivated the vendor to have an interest in keeping it up to date. That would just be a different user-hostile incentive. The path forward is for Android to actually become consumer open source (GPL3). Let device manufacturers concentrate on shipping hardware and adding any new device drivers to a public repository. Updates can then be directly applied by eager users, or eventually pushed out by carriers with minimal integration effort. Proprietary "value adds" like SenseUI can still be done through the package system.
- ergo98 16y ago
  That would just be a different user-hostile incentive. How so? It aligns interests in virtually every way.
  - mindslight 16y ago
    You're assuming that there's a decent amount of people who both have a pressing need for an OS upgrade and wouldn't revolt at the manufacturer charging them to access what is primarily a free update from AOSP. Furthermore, once one person pays $30 for the upgrade, that image can be freely passed around the tinkering communities, so the manufacturer has an incentive for even stronger consumer-hostile DRM. (Yes, integration takes work, but that's exactly why manufacturers need to push their modified code upstream so it can be tested/changed along with the rest of AOSP. A carrier-blessed release should take QA and some minor bugfixes instead of a horrifically large merge-and-debug.)
ergo98 16y ago
Just as one aside on this, it's pretty clear by now that it isn't simply a matter of doing a source control get and the vendor's work is done. Aside from simply having technical insight into the individual ROMs, you needn't look further than the disaster that has been Sony Erricson and Dell's Android entrants to see the truth in this -- those vendors came out with devices running dated Android versions, turning possible winners into catastrophic losers, eviscerating sales of the Streak and X10. If they could have just done a merge and they were done, obviously they would have. So now we're getting to the point where it seems that makers like Motorola and HTC have started to build up a significant Android talent pool, and that bodes well. Despite the constant incantations that Android is free, I wouldn't be surprised if the in-house development costs rivaled or exceeded what something like Windows Mobile cost to license.
- 1010011010 16y ago
  "I wouldn't be surprised if the in-house development costs rivaled or exceeded..." I wonder how much of those costs go into Sense, Motoblur, Touchwiz, etc. Shipping stock android is surely less labor-intensive.
- qjz 16y ago
  I got an X10 for free with upgrade over the holidays and love it. It makes me wonder if all the talk about version upgrades is mere noise. I'm relieved not to be affected by the Android SMS bug in Froyo, so will happily wait until it is fixed. Even if my phone ever sees an upgrade to Eclair, I probably won't notice with AT&T's customizations, which I like quite a bit. It's funny to hear the X10 described as a loser when I like it more than the iPhone. Oh, well, I liked XP more than Vista, too.
  - ergo98 16y ago
    I am talking purely from a market perspective. The X10 was hotly anticipated and was set to make waves...but then it was announced that it was coming with 1.6 and that balloon deflated almost instantly. It is a gorgeous device, but a simple software misstep seriously hobbled its adoption. Dell has suffered the same outcome for its entrants into the Android field. Clearly they were trying to enter the market on the cheap and it hurt them.
jsz0 16y ago
I might pay $30 for a major update but simply going from 2.1 to 2.2 or 2.3? Absolutely not. There aren't enough new features to justify this. The idea of mostly paying for bug fixes is totally unacceptable to me. I'll throw my SmartPhone in the garbage and go back to whatever free-with-contract junk phone they offer before I get held hostage for security and bug fixes.
fakespastic 16y ago
Perhaps future Android devices should have universal upgradeability, and all the carrier has to do is update a table enabling the upgrade for your device - at your own risk. I'd be willing to take it.
drivebyacct2 16y ago
> As has been shown time and time again, vendors really don't want the burden of keeping your handset up to date forever because there is nothing in it for them, aside from perhaps avoiding too much negative press. Then stop locking the bootloader and let me put the latest version of CM on my phone. I'm not going to buy Motorola and I'm not going to buy Samsung. Samsung won't release their kernel modifications for Froyo which are needed by the CM team to get CM7 running on the Galaxy S devices... Motorola is keeping the bootloader (and thus kernel) on their phones restricted. They're also not even close to timely on their updates. My D1 is running Gingerbread fairly stably, especially considering it's ONE maintainer disappeared two weeks ago due to personal financial concerns. OTOH, only one device is running GB from the manufacturer/carrier and that is Google's own phone. Let me use my damn phone, I'll take care of the updates. I don't know how much simpler we can make installing CM7 and I know there are some/many/random-number people who have gone CM just to get the latest Android version.
- joeyo 16y ago
  > Samsung won't release their kernel modifications for > Froyo which are needed by the CM team to get CM7 running > on the Galaxy S devices Isn't this a violation of the GPL?
  - wmf 16y ago
    Not if it's a driver.
    - joeyo 16y ago
      Good point.
    - krakensden 16y ago
      You mean, not if it's a driver with a GPL-compatible shim (a la nVidia).
  - drivebyacct2 16y ago
    Part of the problem is that they haven't shipped Froyo officially. But yes, manufacturers, even HTC, have been up to 6 months late delivering code as required via GPL.
lwhi 16y ago
"As has been shown time and time again, vendors really don't want the burden of keeping your handset up to date forever because there is nothing in it for them, aside from perhaps avoiding too much negative press." The reality is a lot more depressing; the vendors actually want you to buy a new phone. If your current phone can run the latest version of Android - why would you bother ... ?
- ergo98 16y ago
  True to a point, but they don't have the luxury of assuming that you'll buy from them. Not upgrading their devices works against a repeat consumer, really, so you're just as, if not more, likely to help the bottom line of one of their competitors if they leave you in the cold. And of course there's the march of progress, and the nexus one of one year ago is now outmatched by almost all devices with better screens, dual cameras, coming dual core processors and much better GPUs, etc.
  - chapel 16y ago
    The Nexus One may not match the hardware specs of some of the newer phones, but that doesn't mean it is out of the game. My Nexus One is still fast and powerful, and outside of that one Unreal Engine 3 game, has no problems with any app. So my point is that even though other devices have better hardware, rarely is the Nexus One outdated.
- potatolicious 16y ago
  Depressingly true, but there's a flip side: - Brand loyalty. Apple's fans are die-hard partly because Apple doesn't (often) screw their users. You can expect timely (even major) updates to your iPhone for quite some time after release. When's the last time someone reported that they won't buy anything but LG/Samsung/Motorola? - Apple also loves having you on the upgrade cycle. The difference is that these have been largely driven with hardware changes. Retina display, new styling, front-facing camera, GPS unit, 3G connectivity... etc. There's no reason why Samsung, LG, Motorola et al cannot follow this model.
  - 16y ago

by ergo98 16y ago

mindslight 16y ago

> I would happily pay $30 or whatever for each major update if it motivated the vendor to have an interest in keeping it up to date. That would just be a different user-hostile incentive. The path forward is for Android to actually become consumer open source (GPL3). Let device manufacturers concentrate on shipping hardware and adding any new device drivers to a public repository. Updates can then be directly applied by eager users, or eventually pushed out by carriers with minimal integration effort. Proprietary "value adds" like SenseUI can still be done through the package system.

ergo98 16y ago
That would just be a different user-hostile incentive. How so? It aligns interests in virtually every way.
- mindslight 16y ago
  You're assuming that there's a decent amount of people who both have a pressing need for an OS upgrade and wouldn't revolt at the manufacturer charging them to access what is primarily a free update from AOSP. Furthermore, once one person pays $30 for the upgrade, that image can be freely passed around the tinkering communities, so the manufacturer has an incentive for even stronger consumer-hostile DRM. (Yes, integration takes work, but that's exactly why manufacturers need to push their modified code upstream so it can be tested/changed along with the rest of AOSP. A carrier-blessed release should take QA and some minor bugfixes instead of a horrifically large merge-and-debug.)

ergo98 16y ago

Just as one aside on this, it's pretty clear by now that it isn't simply a matter of doing a source control get and the vendor's work is done. Aside from simply having technical insight into the individual ROMs, you needn't look further than the disaster that has been Sony Erricson and Dell's Android entrants to see the truth in this -- those vendors came out with devices running dated Android versions, turning possible winners into catastrophic losers, eviscerating sales of the Streak and X10. If they could have just done a merge and they were done, obviously they would have. So now we're getting to the point where it seems that makers like Motorola and HTC have started to build up a significant Android talent pool, and that bodes well. Despite the constant incantations that Android is free, I wouldn't be surprised if the in-house development costs rivaled or exceeded what something like Windows Mobile cost to license.

1010011010 16y ago
"I wouldn't be surprised if the in-house development costs rivaled or exceeded..." I wonder how much of those costs go into Sense, Motoblur, Touchwiz, etc. Shipping stock android is surely less labor-intensive.
qjz 16y ago
I got an X10 for free with upgrade over the holidays and love it. It makes me wonder if all the talk about version upgrades is mere noise. I'm relieved not to be affected by the Android SMS bug in Froyo, so will happily wait until it is fixed. Even if my phone ever sees an upgrade to Eclair, I probably won't notice with AT&T's customizations, which I like quite a bit. It's funny to hear the X10 described as a loser when I like it more than the iPhone. Oh, well, I liked XP more than Vista, too.
- ergo98 16y ago
  I am talking purely from a market perspective. The X10 was hotly anticipated and was set to make waves...but then it was announced that it was coming with 1.6 and that balloon deflated almost instantly. It is a gorgeous device, but a simple software misstep seriously hobbled its adoption. Dell has suffered the same outcome for its entrants into the Android field. Clearly they were trying to enter the market on the cheap and it hurt them.

jsz0 16y ago

I might pay $30 for a major update but simply going from 2.1 to 2.2 or 2.3? Absolutely not. There aren't enough new features to justify this. The idea of mostly paying for bug fixes is totally unacceptable to me. I'll throw my SmartPhone in the garbage and go back to whatever free-with-contract junk phone they offer before I get held hostage for security and bug fixes.

fakespastic 16y ago

Perhaps future Android devices should have universal upgradeability, and all the carrier has to do is update a table enabling the upgrade for your device - at your own risk. I'd be willing to take it.

drivebyacct2 16y ago

> As has been shown time and time again, vendors really don't want the burden of keeping your handset up to date forever because there is nothing in it for them, aside from perhaps avoiding too much negative press. Then stop locking the bootloader and let me put the latest version of CM on my phone. I'm not going to buy Motorola and I'm not going to buy Samsung. Samsung won't release their kernel modifications for Froyo which are needed by the CM team to get CM7 running on the Galaxy S devices... Motorola is keeping the bootloader (and thus kernel) on their phones restricted. They're also not even close to timely on their updates. My D1 is running Gingerbread fairly stably, especially considering it's ONE maintainer disappeared two weeks ago due to personal financial concerns. OTOH, only one device is running GB from the manufacturer/carrier and that is Google's own phone. Let me use my damn phone, I'll take care of the updates. I don't know how much simpler we can make installing CM7 and I know there are some/many/random-number people who have gone CM just to get the latest Android version.

joeyo 16y ago
> Samsung won't release their kernel modifications for > Froyo which are needed by the CM team to get CM7 running > on the Galaxy S devices Isn't this a violation of the GPL?
- wmf 16y ago
  Not if it's a driver.
  - joeyo 16y ago
    Good point.
  - krakensden 16y ago
    You mean, not if it's a driver with a GPL-compatible shim (a la nVidia).
- drivebyacct2 16y ago
  Part of the problem is that they haven't shipped Froyo officially. But yes, manufacturers, even HTC, have been up to 6 months late delivering code as required via GPL.

lwhi 16y ago

"As has been shown time and time again, vendors really don't want the burden of keeping your handset up to date forever because there is nothing in it for them, aside from perhaps avoiding too much negative press." The reality is a lot more depressing; the vendors actually want you to buy a new phone. If your current phone can run the latest version of Android - why would you bother ... ?

ergo98 16y ago
True to a point, but they don't have the luxury of assuming that you'll buy from them. Not upgrading their devices works against a repeat consumer, really, so you're just as, if not more, likely to help the bottom line of one of their competitors if they leave you in the cold. And of course there's the march of progress, and the nexus one of one year ago is now outmatched by almost all devices with better screens, dual cameras, coming dual core processors and much better GPUs, etc.
- chapel 16y ago
  The Nexus One may not match the hardware specs of some of the newer phones, but that doesn't mean it is out of the game. My Nexus One is still fast and powerful, and outside of that one Unreal Engine 3 game, has no problems with any app. So my point is that even though other devices have better hardware, rarely is the Nexus One outdated.
potatolicious 16y ago
Depressingly true, but there's a flip side: - Brand loyalty. Apple's fans are die-hard partly because Apple doesn't (often) screw their users. You can expect timely (even major) updates to your iPhone for quite some time after release. When's the last time someone reported that they won't buy anything but LG/Samsung/Motorola? - Apple also loves having you on the upgrade cycle. The difference is that these have been largely driven with hardware changes. Retina display, new styling, front-facing camera, GPS unit, 3G connectivity... etc. There's no reason why Samsung, LG, Motorola et al cannot follow this model.
- 16y ago