7 ms·

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 in

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.
      - jsz0 14y ago
        CM9 is only at the release candidate stage for ICS so by their own definition it's beta / un-stable. For my device it's not even officially supported so I rely on random zip files I find in forums for updates. Pretty sketchy stuff.
        rbanffy 14y ago
  - taligent 14y ago
    I've never understood this ridiculous "it's the carriers" argument. Apple doesn't have a problem with releasing timely updates. So how come the Android OEMs can't ?
    - drivebyacct2 14y ago
      Have you read any of the posts up to the point in the thread? They don't want to. They have no incentive to. The carriers regularly drag their feet on updates, even after the manufacturers released them. Apple had the great thought to tell Verizon to, kindly, shove off, and they handle them by themselves. They manage the hardware, and every layer of the OS. That's not true of any Android phone, and the current situation is a result of that reality.
    - cookiecaper 14y ago
      >Apple doesn't have a problem with releasing timely updates. So how come the Android OEMs can't ? Because Android doesn't have the same ridiculous cult around it that Apple does. The iPhone made enough money to make carriers beg Apple to let them carry their phone -- more often it's the other way around, which is why bloatware and disabled features and all that other stuff infects every non-Apple phone. The demand for iPhone is astronomical, and that is the only reason Apple is in a position to instruct the carrier. If normal OEMs try this, the carrier will simply destock their items, remove the subsidy, and the OEM will never get any meaningful sales.
    - antihero 14y ago
      Because they have literally hundreds of handsets to support, as opposed to about 4
    - mgkimsal 14y ago
      I'm assuming some of it has to do with licensing agreements. My guess is carriers want to keep control of the code on the device because many preload their images with extra stuff ('crap' or 'value added service', ymmv). Sun/Oracle can put out timely JRE/JDK updates for Windows/Linux - why doesn't Apple? Similar situation, and one which I thought was incredibly stupid for Sun to get itself in to years ago. If Java is really that core to your business (changing stock symbol to JAVA even!), don't let a third party control the availability and release schedule of that software for some of your users. Sun did it with Apple/Java, and Google's going it with multiple manufacturers and Android.
- sturadnidge 14y ago
  Same here, albeit a different Motorola device. A combination of Motorola and T-Mobile meant I got 2.2 just after 4.0 was released, and I'll never see another legitimate upgrade for my phone, which is less than 2 years old. Not only will I never buy another Motorola phone, after the experience of release delays by carriers I'll never buy another Android phone.
  - javajosh 14y ago
    Yes. This is precisely the reaction that will hurt, if not destroy, Android unless it is addressed.
- glogla 14y ago
  But if you had bought Xperia Arc S year ago, you would have official ICS on it now. Some OEMs do care. And some don't but no-one expects them to, because when you buy Huawei or ZTE phone, you either don't care or are willing to get updates from modaco. With Motorola, it's just sad, but after encrypted bootlockers and soldered everything to make their phones unrepairable and unmodifiable, I would say it is to be expected.
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

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.
    - jsz0 14y ago
      CM9 is only at the release candidate stage for ICS so by their own definition it's beta / un-stable. For my device it's not even officially supported so I rely on random zip files I find in forums for updates. Pretty sketchy stuff.
      - rbanffy 14y ago
- taligent 14y ago
  I've never understood this ridiculous "it's the carriers" argument. Apple doesn't have a problem with releasing timely updates. So how come the Android OEMs can't ?
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    Have you read any of the posts up to the point in the thread? They don't want to. They have no incentive to. The carriers regularly drag their feet on updates, even after the manufacturers released them. Apple had the great thought to tell Verizon to, kindly, shove off, and they handle them by themselves. They manage the hardware, and every layer of the OS. That's not true of any Android phone, and the current situation is a result of that reality.
  - cookiecaper 14y ago
    >Apple doesn't have a problem with releasing timely updates. So how come the Android OEMs can't ? Because Android doesn't have the same ridiculous cult around it that Apple does. The iPhone made enough money to make carriers beg Apple to let them carry their phone -- more often it's the other way around, which is why bloatware and disabled features and all that other stuff infects every non-Apple phone. The demand for iPhone is astronomical, and that is the only reason Apple is in a position to instruct the carrier. If normal OEMs try this, the carrier will simply destock their items, remove the subsidy, and the OEM will never get any meaningful sales.
  - antihero 14y ago
    Because they have literally hundreds of handsets to support, as opposed to about 4
  - mgkimsal 14y ago
    I'm assuming some of it has to do with licensing agreements. My guess is carriers want to keep control of the code on the device because many preload their images with extra stuff ('crap' or 'value added service', ymmv). Sun/Oracle can put out timely JRE/JDK updates for Windows/Linux - why doesn't Apple? Similar situation, and one which I thought was incredibly stupid for Sun to get itself in to years ago. If Java is really that core to your business (changing stock symbol to JAVA even!), don't let a third party control the availability and release schedule of that software for some of your users. Sun did it with Apple/Java, and Google's going it with multiple manufacturers and Android.
sturadnidge 14y ago
Same here, albeit a different Motorola device. A combination of Motorola and T-Mobile meant I got 2.2 just after 4.0 was released, and I'll never see another legitimate upgrade for my phone, which is less than 2 years old. Not only will I never buy another Motorola phone, after the experience of release delays by carriers I'll never buy another Android phone.
- javajosh 14y ago
  Yes. This is precisely the reaction that will hurt, if not destroy, Android unless it is addressed.
glogla 14y ago
But if you had bought Xperia Arc S year ago, you would have official ICS on it now. Some OEMs do care. And some don't but no-one expects them to, because when you buy Huawei or ZTE phone, you either don't care or are willing to get updates from modaco. With Motorola, it's just sad, but after encrypted bootlockers and soldered everything to make their phones unrepairable and unmodifiable, I would say it is to be expected.

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