5 ms·

> There's a lot of money to be made and they'll get in line The fact that that's not true is precisely why timely upgrades aren't done. Verizon and Motorola so

> There's a lot of money to be made and they'll get in line The fact that that's not true is precisely why timely upgrades aren't done. Verizon and Motorola sold you that Droid RAZR. They get nothing from spending engineer time to update it. Also, what is this implication that Google is just being lazy or has some incentive to not have everyone running the latest OS. You really think Google so powerful that they can snap their fingers and make OEMs do what they want? Isn't the very existence (and initial struggle) of the Nexus line evidence against that?

javajosh 14y ago
Apple gets "nothing" from engineering their upgrades to be backwards compatible. That is, if "nothing" means being incredibly successful. People are actually rather smart about things like this, and they know that the iPhone "just works" and will continue to work, and that is a huge competitive advantage. And long-term competitive advantage is one of the classic components of "maximizing shareholder value". So yes, publicly traded OEMs (which is all of them) are legally required to maximize shareholder value, and they are not doing that. P.S. I think you are a troll, based on this and prior discussions, and this is the last time I'm responding to you. I'd appreciate it if you'd not respond to my posts either. Thank you.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  I hope it's obvious that Motorola releasing the RAZR2 is more profitable than spending time working on software updates to the RAZR1 and I don't know why you insist on comparing Android OEMs to Apple when you yourself already point out that they have different goals and strategies by the nature of their products,
  - jshen 14y ago
    I bought a droid x2 about a year ago. It was a top of the line phone a year ago, and I can't even get ICS for this phone. Here's what's going to happen to motorola's profits. I will never buy another phone from them.
    - Xyzodiac 14y ago
      I bought the same phone, it's incredibly sad that OEMs do this.
    - cookiecaper 14y ago
      FWIW you can get ICS on that phone, just not officially. If you aren't going to buy a Nexus, you have to accept the fate of sparse official/OTA updates if you're lucky enough to get any at all. This is the fault of carriers and the ignorant masses that prop them up. An alternative exists if you're interested; buy Nexus line.
      - jshen 14y ago
        Please tell me how to get ics . Btw, there have been nexus phones that have taken a while to get updates.
      - Xyzodiac 14y ago
        With loads and loads of bugs, dragonzkiller's CM9 ROM is incredibly alpha.
      - jsz0 14y ago
        Only by installing alpha/beta quality software from an untrusted source. Not an acceptable solution for most. You're right though about buying a Nexus. That's the only way you will have any chance of getting software updates. If it's not available on your country/carrier, and updates are important to you, do not buy an Android phone.
        glogla 14y ago
        Not really. First of all, free/open source software is not really "alpha/beta quality software from untrusted source" and suggesting it is, is pretty much trolling. Second, Google is not the only one manufacturer (in the borad sense) that keeps it's phones up-to-date, for example Sony recently released 4.0 upgrade for it's 2011 models. Third, I know it tends to be pretty common in the US, but if you are buying subsidized phone from your carrier to save money, you do save money, but pay a different price, be it slow upgrades, disabled tethering or something else. And no one coerced you to buy chaeper but crippled phone, you made that decision yourself. But most of all, the platform fragmentation, I mean in the sense that even this instant some OEMs are selling Android 2.3 devices is the price for cheap phones being available at all. Sure, Apple does update it's phones (though not really old models so people still have to upgrade), but for a price of iPhone, you easily can get three or four cheap Android devices. This is because they can use old software that has lower hardware requirements and because reusing software has little R&D costs. In the end, saying "I want no Android fragmentation" is pretty much saying "I want smartphones only for rich people" and I don't think that's worth it. Even if, maybe, in US, people can buy iPhones all the time and it would not be a problem for them, there are other parts of the world too.
  - wmf 14y ago
    Realistically, there is a level beyond which you cannot increase profit through forced obsolescence. If I have a year left on my contract I am not going to buy a new phone, no matter how good it is. So the choice is not between a free software update and a new phone. It's a choice between a software update and nothing; the update may actually be more profitable.
    - dangrossman 14y ago
      Explain why a free software update for a year-old phone would even be on their radar of choices? The only time carriers have provided free Android updates was when a brand new phone was being released around the time of a major Android update, and competing against other brand new phones that already have the update, putting their product at a disadvantage among comparison shoppers. What's the incentive to give you a free update a year into your 2-year contract? Nobody else is doing it, so not providing an update isn't going to influence a decision to switch carriers. Providing the update will cost significant money, while doing nothing will cost nothing. Why would creating an update "be more profitable"?
      - wmf 14y ago
        Apple gives free updates. An update would be profitable if they charged for it.
        objclxt 14y ago
        Apple used to charge for iOS updates, for somewhat spurious 'accounting' reasons. iPod users had to pay $5 or something (iPhone users still got it for free). They don't any more.
        glhaynes 14y ago
        Interesting point. Has anybody charged for Android updates? IMO, $9.99 for a major upgrade wouldn't be offensive and could be a pretty decent chunk of revenue...
      - gergles 14y ago
- avbor 14y ago
  They are maximizing shareholder value though. Each OEM is competing with the other OEMs producing for Android, and creating a new Android update for the older phones doesn't increase sells if another OEM releases a phone that has better specs in addition to having the newest OS. Whenever any of my friends go shopping for a new Android phone, they immediately try to find the one with the highest specs. OEMs aren't going to waste time releasing an update for a phone that won't make them money anymore, they're going to spend time instead on making better hardware that will make money.
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    They're only maximizing it for one quarter at a time. They're losing repeat business to competitors, primarily Apple. Why would I want to buy a second product from a company that has let me down once already?
    - spiralpolitik 14y ago
      I've been wondering if this is why Android growth in the US stalled last quarter as the people who bought Verizon Droids in fall 2009/early 2010 fall out of contract and pick something other than a Droid (i.e an iPhone) when they renew.
- astrodust 14y ago
  Apple gets a lot of things, obviously. Making the updates backwards compatible means more people are using the current version, and that means feature uptake time is minimized. Apple's intention is that supporting your hardware for a longer period of time makes it a more attractive purchase. Android phone manufacturers do not care about this. They are not in the business of promoting the operating system or cultivating a developer base. They want to sell hardware. They sell hardware by introducing new models with new features, not porting those same features to older models that have already been sold. The maximal return under the Android model is to deliberately obsolete your older hardware so people purchase new phones.
  - jshen 14y ago
    that's flawed short term logic. I will never buy another android phone from someone like motorola. My phone is about a year old. Still under contract, and I can't even get ICS. I don't have the option of buying another phone right now!
    - cookiecaper 14y ago
      Why is that? Your contract allows you to change phones at any time, you just can't get another subsidy or cancel your service without a fee until the extant contract expires. You are free to purchase another phone, second-hand or new, without cell company subsidy and switch to it.
      - jshen 14y ago
        And you think that is a good situation for Android users? Want the new OS, buy a new phone without a subsidy. That is one hell of a tag line for Android
        technomancy 14y ago
        That's what you get for trusting your carrier. Luckily you can get Android devices that you have control over yourself.
- jsz0 14y ago
  Apple gets happy developers who can use the latest & greatest APIs and support the latest & greatest features/services Apple offers. Android OEMs have no incentive. They don't get a cut of app or ad revenue. To this point at least lack of updates have not caused them any major problems. As we move further and further away from 2.x though I do think it will start to become a bigger issue. On the plus side it looks like Google made very few changes to 4.1 so we should see devices shipping with it by the end of the year this time.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  >I think you are a troll, based on this and prior discussions, and this is the last time I'm responding to you. Nice of you to edit and sneak that in there. All I did was mention how it's in the interest of OEMs to push new devices. You continue to call me names, not reply to what I'm saying and be rude. Apparently you learned nothing from the last time you did this to me. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4158857 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4158857
- cpeterso 14y ago
  Apple owns both the iOS platform and devices. I think Apple supports their older hardware because they want to reduce fragmentation of their iOS platform. Apple plays the long game. Google owns the Android platform, but only a few Android devices. The carriers and device OEMs just want to pump 'n' dump devices. They don't care about the long term health of the Android ecosystem.
- andrewfelix 14y ago
  This isn't your personal email account. Hacker News is about informed discussion and debate. If you don't want people to engage you I have two suggestions; 1) Don't post your comments here. 2) Stop being intentionally provocative.

javajosh 14y ago

Apple gets "nothing" from engineering their upgrades to be backwards compatible. That is, if "nothing" means being incredibly successful. People are actually rather smart about things like this, and they know that the iPhone "just works" and will continue to work, and that is a huge competitive advantage. And long-term competitive advantage is one of the classic components of "maximizing shareholder value". So yes, publicly traded OEMs (which is all of them) are legally required to maximize shareholder value, and they are not doing that. P.S. I think you are a troll, based on this and prior discussions, and this is the last time I'm responding to you. I'd appreciate it if you'd not respond to my posts either. Thank you.

drivebyacct2 14y ago
I hope it's obvious that Motorola releasing the RAZR2 is more profitable than spending time working on software updates to the RAZR1 and I don't know why you insist on comparing Android OEMs to Apple when you yourself already point out that they have different goals and strategies by the nature of their products,
- jshen 14y ago
  I bought a droid x2 about a year ago. It was a top of the line phone a year ago, and I can't even get ICS for this phone. Here's what's going to happen to motorola's profits. I will never buy another phone from them.
  - Xyzodiac 14y ago
    I bought the same phone, it's incredibly sad that OEMs do this.
  - cookiecaper 14y ago
    FWIW you can get ICS on that phone, just not officially. If you aren't going to buy a Nexus, you have to accept the fate of sparse official/OTA updates if you're lucky enough to get any at all. This is the fault of carriers and the ignorant masses that prop them up. An alternative exists if you're interested; buy Nexus line.
    - jshen 14y ago
      Please tell me how to get ics . Btw, there have been nexus phones that have taken a while to get updates.
    - Xyzodiac 14y ago
      With loads and loads of bugs, dragonzkiller's CM9 ROM is incredibly alpha.
    - jsz0 14y ago
      Only by installing alpha/beta quality software from an untrusted source. Not an acceptable solution for most. You're right though about buying a Nexus. That's the only way you will have any chance of getting software updates. If it's not available on your country/carrier, and updates are important to you, do not buy an Android phone.
      - glogla 14y ago
        Not really. First of all, free/open source software is not really "alpha/beta quality software from untrusted source" and suggesting it is, is pretty much trolling. Second, Google is not the only one manufacturer (in the borad sense) that keeps it's phones up-to-date, for example Sony recently released 4.0 upgrade for it's 2011 models. Third, I know it tends to be pretty common in the US, but if you are buying subsidized phone from your carrier to save money, you do save money, but pay a different price, be it slow upgrades, disabled tethering or something else. And no one coerced you to buy chaeper but crippled phone, you made that decision yourself. But most of all, the platform fragmentation, I mean in the sense that even this instant some OEMs are selling Android 2.3 devices is the price for cheap phones being available at all. Sure, Apple does update it's phones (though not really old models so people still have to upgrade), but for a price of iPhone, you easily can get three or four cheap Android devices. This is because they can use old software that has lower hardware requirements and because reusing software has little R&D costs. In the end, saying "I want no Android fragmentation" is pretty much saying "I want smartphones only for rich people" and I don't think that's worth it. Even if, maybe, in US, people can buy iPhones all the time and it would not be a problem for them, there are other parts of the world too.
- wmf 14y ago
  Realistically, there is a level beyond which you cannot increase profit through forced obsolescence. If I have a year left on my contract I am not going to buy a new phone, no matter how good it is. So the choice is not between a free software update and a new phone. It's a choice between a software update and nothing; the update may actually be more profitable.
  - dangrossman 14y ago
    Explain why a free software update for a year-old phone would even be on their radar of choices? The only time carriers have provided free Android updates was when a brand new phone was being released around the time of a major Android update, and competing against other brand new phones that already have the update, putting their product at a disadvantage among comparison shoppers. What's the incentive to give you a free update a year into your 2-year contract? Nobody else is doing it, so not providing an update isn't going to influence a decision to switch carriers. Providing the update will cost significant money, while doing nothing will cost nothing. Why would creating an update "be more profitable"?
    - wmf 14y ago
      Apple gives free updates. An update would be profitable if they charged for it.
      - objclxt 14y ago
        Apple used to charge for iOS updates, for somewhat spurious 'accounting' reasons. iPod users had to pay $5 or something (iPhone users still got it for free). They don't any more.
      - glhaynes 14y ago
        Interesting point. Has anybody charged for Android updates? IMO, $9.99 for a major upgrade wouldn't be offensive and could be a pretty decent chunk of revenue...
    - gergles 14y ago
avbor 14y ago
They are maximizing shareholder value though. Each OEM is competing with the other OEMs producing for Android, and creating a new Android update for the older phones doesn't increase sells if another OEM releases a phone that has better specs in addition to having the newest OS. Whenever any of my friends go shopping for a new Android phone, they immediately try to find the one with the highest specs. OEMs aren't going to waste time releasing an update for a phone that won't make them money anymore, they're going to spend time instead on making better hardware that will make money.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  They're only maximizing it for one quarter at a time. They're losing repeat business to competitors, primarily Apple. Why would I want to buy a second product from a company that has let me down once already?
  - spiralpolitik 14y ago
    I've been wondering if this is why Android growth in the US stalled last quarter as the people who bought Verizon Droids in fall 2009/early 2010 fall out of contract and pick something other than a Droid (i.e an iPhone) when they renew.
astrodust 14y ago
Apple gets a lot of things, obviously. Making the updates backwards compatible means more people are using the current version, and that means feature uptake time is minimized. Apple's intention is that supporting your hardware for a longer period of time makes it a more attractive purchase. Android phone manufacturers do not care about this. They are not in the business of promoting the operating system or cultivating a developer base. They want to sell hardware. They sell hardware by introducing new models with new features, not porting those same features to older models that have already been sold. The maximal return under the Android model is to deliberately obsolete your older hardware so people purchase new phones.
- jshen 14y ago
  that's flawed short term logic. I will never buy another android phone from someone like motorola. My phone is about a year old. Still under contract, and I can't even get ICS. I don't have the option of buying another phone right now!
  - cookiecaper 14y ago
    Why is that? Your contract allows you to change phones at any time, you just can't get another subsidy or cancel your service without a fee until the extant contract expires. You are free to purchase another phone, second-hand or new, without cell company subsidy and switch to it.
    - jshen 14y ago
      And you think that is a good situation for Android users? Want the new OS, buy a new phone without a subsidy. That is one hell of a tag line for Android
      - technomancy 14y ago
        That's what you get for trusting your carrier. Luckily you can get Android devices that you have control over yourself.
jsz0 14y ago
Apple gets happy developers who can use the latest & greatest APIs and support the latest & greatest features/services Apple offers. Android OEMs have no incentive. They don't get a cut of app or ad revenue. To this point at least lack of updates have not caused them any major problems. As we move further and further away from 2.x though I do think it will start to become a bigger issue. On the plus side it looks like Google made very few changes to 4.1 so we should see devices shipping with it by the end of the year this time.
drivebyacct2 14y ago
>I think you are a troll, based on this and prior discussions, and this is the last time I'm responding to you. Nice of you to edit and sneak that in there. All I did was mention how it's in the interest of OEMs to push new devices. You continue to call me names, not reply to what I'm saying and be rude. Apparently you learned nothing from the last time you did this to me. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4158857 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4158857
cpeterso 14y ago
Apple owns both the iOS platform and devices. I think Apple supports their older hardware because they want to reduce fragmentation of their iOS platform. Apple plays the long game. Google owns the Android platform, but only a few Android devices. The carriers and device OEMs just want to pump 'n' dump devices. They don't care about the long term health of the Android ecosystem.
andrewfelix 14y ago
This isn't your personal email account. Hacker News is about informed discussion and debate. If you don't want people to engage you I have two suggestions; 1) Don't post your comments here. 2) Stop being intentionally provocative.