5 ms·

18 months guaranteed updates? If you're not going to guarantee Apple-like longevity why would you even do it, period? I'm sure MS would like to get that level

by bishnu 14y ago

18 months guaranteed updates? If you're not going to guarantee Apple-like longevity why would you even do it, period? I'm sure MS would like to get that level of support but if they don't want to bet on it why not just have everyone live in ignorance?

r00fus 14y ago
With similar difficulties that Android has - ie, the handset manufacturers being part of the update process - another question is, how long after an OS update is posted will it take to see it on all devices? Will some arrive in days or weeks, while others linger for months? Will Nokia be given preferential treatment?
aphexairlines 14y ago
Maybe has something to do with carriers subsidizing a new phone for you every 2 years, at least in the US.
mgkimsal 14y ago
18 months is a hell of a lot better than the 0 months you get with many android-based devices (or, effectively, negative months with 2.1 released devices).
- kumarm 14y ago
  Why would average person want a major OS upgrade for their phone? I can understand a minor update (Bug fix etc). But do I really want my Phone OS to be updated (yes as a developer but no as a user)?
  - czr80 14y ago
    My phone? No, I don't really care if that is updated. My handheld computer? That I definitely want to be running the latest OS.
  - mgkimsal 14y ago
    When 'new' features are advertised, many people like to use them. "You can do XYZ on your Android, except not the one you bought brand new last month because it's really 23 months old already. To use XYZ, you'll need to shell out another $x00 vs just getting a software download". Google allowing device manufacturers to even have a hand in deciding who gets updates and when is... crazy. The damage that can and will do to the Android brand over time is immense. The biggest 'value' most people see in Android is "not Apple", which isn't really a long term viable competitive position to take. MS has (and has had for some time) an opp to eat away at the "anything but apple" smartphone crowd, and they'll be taking share away from Android.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

by bishnu 14y ago

r00fus 14y ago

With similar difficulties that Android has - ie, the handset manufacturers being part of the update process - another question is, how long after an OS update is posted will it take to see it on all devices? Will some arrive in days or weeks, while others linger for months? Will Nokia be given preferential treatment?

aphexairlines 14y ago

Maybe has something to do with carriers subsidizing a new phone for you every 2 years, at least in the US.

mgkimsal 14y ago

18 months is a hell of a lot better than the 0 months you get with many android-based devices (or, effectively, negative months with 2.1 released devices).

kumarm 14y ago
Why would average person want a major OS upgrade for their phone? I can understand a minor update (Bug fix etc). But do I really want my Phone OS to be updated (yes as a developer but no as a user)?
- czr80 14y ago
  My phone? No, I don't really care if that is updated. My handheld computer? That I definitely want to be running the latest OS.
- mgkimsal 14y ago
  When 'new' features are advertised, many people like to use them. "You can do XYZ on your Android, except not the one you bought brand new last month because it's really 23 months old already. To use XYZ, you'll need to shell out another $x00 vs just getting a software download". Google allowing device manufacturers to even have a hand in deciding who gets updates and when is... crazy. The damage that can and will do to the Android brand over time is immense. The biggest 'value' most people see in Android is "not Apple", which isn't really a long term viable competitive position to take. MS has (and has had for some time) an opp to eat away at the "anything but apple" smartphone crowd, and they'll be taking share away from Android.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]