4 ms·

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 o

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.
      - jamesaguilar 14y ago
        > Microsoft has no such obligation You and I are using different meanings of this word. Presumably you are referring to a legal obligation, or a moral one. I don't recognize the existence of morality and I suspect that, unless they have a "Windows 8 Ready" tag on the machine, no legal obligation would exist either. The "obligation" I am speaking of is an expectation formed in the minds of average consumers to the point where they consider it a fault on the part of the software manufacturer when the expectation is not met. > Dell ... How old was the machine? There's a big difference in most consumers' expectations between failing to support N-year old devices and devices that are currently selling.
        wvenable 14y ago
        > The "obligation" I am speaking of is an expectation... Obligation is a legal or moral term -- you can't use that term otherwise. An expectation is not an obligation. If you expect free cookies from me because I've been giving you free cookies every day for the past week, that's fine. But I'm not obligated to give you free cookies today. If Bob gives you free cookies and I'm now sitting in Bob's desk, you might expect free cookies but I'm not obligated to give them to you. Microsoft provides updates out of the goodness of their heart. You might expect them to continue giving updates forever. They're not obligated to do that. And because they give updates, Google isn't obligated to do it too. If you'd like your expectations to be met, find Bob and he might give you some cookies.
        jamesaguilar 14y ago
        I guess we have reached an impasse. We'll see how well this approach works out for Google in the long run. I'm inclined to suspect it is hurting them as it would probably hurt Microsoft if they started breaking backwards compatibility with every OS release. But reality will have to be the arbiter of whether this theory is correct. Also, IMO, the term social obligation is pretty well understood. It's an expectation of your behavior by others.

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.
    - jamesaguilar 14y ago
      > Microsoft has no such obligation You and I are using different meanings of this word. Presumably you are referring to a legal obligation, or a moral one. I don't recognize the existence of morality and I suspect that, unless they have a "Windows 8 Ready" tag on the machine, no legal obligation would exist either. The "obligation" I am speaking of is an expectation formed in the minds of average consumers to the point where they consider it a fault on the part of the software manufacturer when the expectation is not met. > Dell ... How old was the machine? There's a big difference in most consumers' expectations between failing to support N-year old devices and devices that are currently selling.
      - wvenable 14y ago
        > The "obligation" I am speaking of is an expectation... Obligation is a legal or moral term -- you can't use that term otherwise. An expectation is not an obligation. If you expect free cookies from me because I've been giving you free cookies every day for the past week, that's fine. But I'm not obligated to give you free cookies today. If Bob gives you free cookies and I'm now sitting in Bob's desk, you might expect free cookies but I'm not obligated to give them to you. Microsoft provides updates out of the goodness of their heart. You might expect them to continue giving updates forever. They're not obligated to do that. And because they give updates, Google isn't obligated to do it too. If you'd like your expectations to be met, find Bob and he might give you some cookies.
        jamesaguilar 14y ago
        I guess we have reached an impasse. We'll see how well this approach works out for Google in the long run. I'm inclined to suspect it is hurting them as it would probably hurt Microsoft if they started breaking backwards compatibility with every OS release. But reality will have to be the arbiter of whether this theory is correct. Also, IMO, the term social obligation is pretty well understood. It's an expectation of your behavior by others.