3 ms·
Device makers and the wireless operators that sell smartphones and tablets to consumers haven't been able to keep up. While you could call this trivially true
by obviouslygreen 13y ago
Device makers and the wireless operators that sell smartphones and tablets to consumers haven't been able to keep up.
While you could call this trivially true if you assume that this is a goal of theirs and they are actually trying, I think it misses the reality that operators don't care, at all, whether your device is up to date in terms of the OS once you've signed on for your plan.
It would be a very interesting challenge to attempt an OS that could be kept up to date in terms of base functionality while still allowing carrier bastardization at a different layer. However, this is a goal that, it seems to me, would have best been addressed ten years ago.
- kbenson 13y agoI think it misses the reality that operators don't care, at all, whether your device is up to date in terms of the OS once you've signed on for your plan I think it's more likely that they care, but in complex and conflicting ways that aren't always obvious to the general consumer. When you first buy the device (if it's close to launch), they probably care because your opinions inform others quite a bit, so hey want to make you happy and generate positive feedback. Close to the launch of a new flagship device, they probably would prefer to delay updates for other/older models, to help adoption and uptake of the new model. Throughout the entire time, they care enough to not generate too much negative feedback about their products such that it affects the marketplace.
- ianlevesque 13y agoEither way its evidence that rolling out OS upgrades to hardware shouldn't be left up to them.
- hbharadwaj 13y agoIsn't that Microsoft is attempting with Windows Phone? The differentiation is based on applications while the base functionality remains the same.