3 ms·

Yeah, I don't really care. It is Google branded, was developed primarily by Google, was marketed as "Google Android" and/or "Android by Google" at various times

Yeah, I don't really care. It is Google branded, was developed primarily by Google, was marketed as "Google Android" and/or "Android by Google" at various times, has Google apps, has a store run by Google where I get more apps, and has Google's name associated with it in every news article I find about it online. It's a Google device to me, Joe Average Consumer. Your technicalities don't mean jack to me. Also, everything you said in this comment applies likewise when I get a laptop with Windows installed by an OEM. Are you prepared to argue that a Windows computer is in no part a Microsoft product and that Microsoft would not be responsible if the OS failed to update on my laptop?

wvenable 14y ago
You have absolutely no business relationship with Google with regards to your device and yet you think it's their problem? Branding tells you what software it's running -- that's all -- it doesn't imply anything more.
- jamesaguilar 14y ago
  So you ignored my point about Windows OEM. Would you like to address that or are you going to concede it?
  - wvenable 14y ago
    I didn't see your point (you edited it in) Yes, I am prepared to argue that you have no direct business relationship with Microsoft when you purchase a PC. In fact, if you read your license agreement you will see that -- the first line in fact reads: "These license terms are an agreement between you and the computer manufacturer that distributes the software with the computer". According to the license the manufacturer accepts all responsibility for defects in Windows (including updates) for the warranty period. If you choose to install a version of Windows purchased directly from Microsoft, that's under completely different terms.
    - jamesaguilar 14y ago
      This is not the question I asked. I asked you if you thought it would be wrong to consider Microsoft responsible for Windows failing to update on a recently acquired laptop. I am slightly curious as to your personal opinion, but in the main it simply doesn't matter what an individual hacker knowledgable about the business aspects of the ecosystem thinks. I'd be willing to stake up to a hundred dollars that if you find five random Windows users on the street and ask them "If Windows stopped updating on your machine, would you consider Microsoft responsible for that?" five of them would say yes (assuming they know that Windows updates at all :P). Whether you technically have a business relationship with Microsoft is totally uninteresting to most consumers, as is also true in this case with Google. What matters is the expectations created by marketing, branding, and UI. That's really all I have to say about this subject. Yes, I did edit it in, but I thought I had done it so quickly that you would not have seen the original comment. My apologies.
      - wvenable 14y ago
        > be wrong to consider Microsoft responsible for Windows failing to update on a recently acquired laptop. Is it wrong that Microsoft doesn't provide free versions of Windows 8 to everyone who bought a Windows 7 PC? Because that's what you're comparing it to. Obviously nobody on the street would think that's reasonable. > If Windows stopped updating on your machine, would you consider Microsoft responsible for that? Microsoft has no moral obligation to provide updates and updates are really a relatively new invention. They do, in fact, stop providing updates to their software all the time. > What matters is the expectations created by marketing, branding, and UI. So what really matters is a bunch of subjective crap? Honestly? No where does Google say they'll update your device. Not in the marketing, not the branding, not even really in the UI.
        jamesaguilar 14y ago
        > Is it wrong that Microsoft doesn't provide free versions . . . More like, "Would it be wrong if Windows 8 would not install on a computer I bought this year?" > So what really matters is a bunch of subjective crap? Yes. I'm human. "Subjective crap" and the expectations created by it matter to me, as they do to most of us.
marekmroz 14y ago
Your Windows OEM analogy does not hold since the OEM does not develop nor integrate their own version of Windows. More importantly, Microsoft has full control over update channel. Not so with Android. > Would you like to address that or are you going to concede it? It is not a sword duel you know? Between this and throwing "I don't care's" around you really come off argumentative
- jamesaguilar 14y ago
  > Your Windows OEM analogy does not hold since the OEM does not develop nor integrate their own version of Windows. For the most part, the extent of this with Android is providing drivers and firmware for an individual phone's hardware, plus a few crapware apps to run on the desktop. This happens all the time in the Windows ecosystem too. I think the analogy is holding up just fine. I am argumentative, so it is reasonable for me to come off this way, although you're right that I should chill a little. I dislike the double standards that people have with respect to Google and other companies on this subject.
  - wvenable 14y ago
    But, of course, you're wrong since there is no double-standard. Microsoft is no more responsible than Google is with regards to their software installed on hardware you buy from a manufacturer.
    - jamesaguilar 14y ago
      I would be very surprised if the average Joe feels this way. To double check my theories, I just asked three engineers where I work and they all seem to believe that Microsoft has an obligation to support new, high-end laptops in a near-term OS bump.
      - wvenable 14y ago
        Microsoft has no such obligation; but you might certainly want that. But we all want stuff. Do a bunch of engineers want Microsoft to release an OS that supports their new laptops -- of course. So what. The thing is, this happens all the time. My Dell laptop came with Vista and it doesn't "support" Windows 7. You can't get 7 drivers directly from them. It runs 7 just fine (in fact better) but you're on your own to get it working.
orangecat 14y ago
It's a Google device to me, Joe Average Consumer. And Joe Average Consumer doesn't care what OS version his phone is running, as long as he can play Angry Birds and get email and Facebook. I wish that wasn't true, because then carriers and manufacturers who fail to provide updates would be punished by the market, but it is.

wvenable 14y ago

You have absolutely no business relationship with Google with regards to your device and yet you think it's their problem? Branding tells you what software it's running -- that's all -- it doesn't imply anything more.

jamesaguilar 14y ago
So you ignored my point about Windows OEM. Would you like to address that or are you going to concede it?
- wvenable 14y ago
  I didn't see your point (you edited it in) Yes, I am prepared to argue that you have no direct business relationship with Microsoft when you purchase a PC. In fact, if you read your license agreement you will see that -- the first line in fact reads: "These license terms are an agreement between you and the computer manufacturer that distributes the software with the computer". According to the license the manufacturer accepts all responsibility for defects in Windows (including updates) for the warranty period. If you choose to install a version of Windows purchased directly from Microsoft, that's under completely different terms.
  - jamesaguilar 14y ago
    This is not the question I asked. I asked you if you thought it would be wrong to consider Microsoft responsible for Windows failing to update on a recently acquired laptop. I am slightly curious as to your personal opinion, but in the main it simply doesn't matter what an individual hacker knowledgable about the business aspects of the ecosystem thinks. I'd be willing to stake up to a hundred dollars that if you find five random Windows users on the street and ask them "If Windows stopped updating on your machine, would you consider Microsoft responsible for that?" five of them would say yes (assuming they know that Windows updates at all :P). Whether you technically have a business relationship with Microsoft is totally uninteresting to most consumers, as is also true in this case with Google. What matters is the expectations created by marketing, branding, and UI. That's really all I have to say about this subject. Yes, I did edit it in, but I thought I had done it so quickly that you would not have seen the original comment. My apologies.
    - wvenable 14y ago
      > be wrong to consider Microsoft responsible for Windows failing to update on a recently acquired laptop. Is it wrong that Microsoft doesn't provide free versions of Windows 8 to everyone who bought a Windows 7 PC? Because that's what you're comparing it to. Obviously nobody on the street would think that's reasonable. > If Windows stopped updating on your machine, would you consider Microsoft responsible for that? Microsoft has no moral obligation to provide updates and updates are really a relatively new invention. They do, in fact, stop providing updates to their software all the time. > What matters is the expectations created by marketing, branding, and UI. So what really matters is a bunch of subjective crap? Honestly? No where does Google say they'll update your device. Not in the marketing, not the branding, not even really in the UI.
      - jamesaguilar 14y ago
        > Is it wrong that Microsoft doesn't provide free versions . . . More like, "Would it be wrong if Windows 8 would not install on a computer I bought this year?" > So what really matters is a bunch of subjective crap? Yes. I'm human. "Subjective crap" and the expectations created by it matter to me, as they do to most of us.

marekmroz 14y ago

Your Windows OEM analogy does not hold since the OEM does not develop nor integrate their own version of Windows. More importantly, Microsoft has full control over update channel. Not so with Android. > Would you like to address that or are you going to concede it? It is not a sword duel you know? Between this and throwing "I don't care's" around you really come off argumentative

jamesaguilar 14y ago
> Your Windows OEM analogy does not hold since the OEM does not develop nor integrate their own version of Windows. For the most part, the extent of this with Android is providing drivers and firmware for an individual phone's hardware, plus a few crapware apps to run on the desktop. This happens all the time in the Windows ecosystem too. I think the analogy is holding up just fine. I am argumentative, so it is reasonable for me to come off this way, although you're right that I should chill a little. I dislike the double standards that people have with respect to Google and other companies on this subject.
- wvenable 14y ago
  But, of course, you're wrong since there is no double-standard. Microsoft is no more responsible than Google is with regards to their software installed on hardware you buy from a manufacturer.
  - jamesaguilar 14y ago
    I would be very surprised if the average Joe feels this way. To double check my theories, I just asked three engineers where I work and they all seem to believe that Microsoft has an obligation to support new, high-end laptops in a near-term OS bump.
    - wvenable 14y ago
      Microsoft has no such obligation; but you might certainly want that. But we all want stuff. Do a bunch of engineers want Microsoft to release an OS that supports their new laptops -- of course. So what. The thing is, this happens all the time. My Dell laptop came with Vista and it doesn't "support" Windows 7. You can't get 7 drivers directly from them. It runs 7 just fine (in fact better) but you're on your own to get it working.

orangecat 14y ago

It's a Google device to me, Joe Average Consumer. And Joe Average Consumer doesn't care what OS version his phone is running, as long as he can play Angry Birds and get email and Facebook. I wish that wasn't true, because then carriers and manufacturers who fail to provide updates would be punished by the market, but it is.