Taken from Dailytech:
Many HTC owners have been upset at the poor performance of some HTC devices when it comes to video playback. DailyTech reported in January that some HTC owners had banded together and were threatening a class action law suit if the poor video performance issue wasn’t addressed.
One stated goal of the HTC owners was to get a driver from HTC for the ATI Imageon video acceleration hardware present in certain HTC handsets that was not being utilized. HTC spokesman Eric Lin told DailyTech that HTC is releasing a fix that will dramatically improve the video performance on the Touch family of devices and the TYTN II/Tilt, Mogul/XV6900 devices.
This fix will be in the form of software update rather than a new ROM image. HTC is very specific in pointing out that this fix is not a driver for the Imageon hardware locked away inside the Qualcomm chipset in the devices in question. For a reason why HTC won’t release a driver for the Imageon hardware, Lin provided DailyTech with this official statement:
"HTC DOES plan to offer software upgrades that will increase feature functionality, over the air wireless speeds and other enhancements for some of the phones being criticized, but we do not anticipate including any additional support for the video acceleration issues cited in customer complaints. It is important for customers to understand that bringing this functionality to market is not a trivial driver update and requires extensive software development and time.
HTC will utilize hardware video acceleration like the ATI Imageon in many upcoming products. Our users have made it clear that they expect our products to offer an improved visual experience, and we have included this feedback into planning and development of future products.
To address lingering questions about HTC's current MSM 7xxx devices, it is important to establish that a chipset like an MSM7xxx is a platform with a vast multitude of features that enable a wide range of devices with varied functionality. It is common that devices built on platforms like Qualcomm's will not enable every feature or function.
In addition to making sure the required hardware is present, unlocking extended capabilities of chipsets like the MSM 7xxx requires in-depth and time consuming software development, complicated licensing negotiations, potential intellectual property negotiations, added licensing fees, and in the case of devices that are sold through operators, the desire of the operator to include the additional functionality. To make an informed decision about which handset suits them best, consumers should look at the product specification itself instead of using the underlying chipset specifications to define what the product could potentially become."
The Imageon video acceleration hardware is present in the devices in question, however, it appears that the reason no drivers were provided has to do with licensing issues.
Wow. I have no complaints for the current speed. I suppose if it's faster, awesome!
bimmerd00d said:
Wow. I have no complaints for the current speed. I suppose if it's faster, awesome!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I see what they are saying. It may well come down to licensing. If the licensing fee has not been paid for your device,then they CANT update you. If your carrier does not want to buy a device that includes the cost of the licensing fee,then they wont include the driver. Thats how I read it at least.
A class action lawsuit seems rather pointless. HTC has no responsibility to provide any particular functionality in their drivers beyond what is advertised by your carrier. There are many pieces of consumer electronics gear that provide additional functionality with different drivers. Our phones have evdo rev A and GPS as well. They DO have to provide rev A,because they said they would and sold it as Rev A upgradable. We could sue for that if they didnt. GPS however is a bonus.
Take a look at certain linksys routers that have different feature sets with different firmware. Older GeForce cards have advanced features that were locked out in the driver,and only available on Quadro series workstation cards. Many CPUs have features locked out either in the bios or by cutting traces on the actual CPU. Its suspected that some blu-ray readers are actually the writers with a different firmware. (which will be hacked in due time for those lucky bastards if its true =) ) Sound cards,hard drives,modems,stand alone dvd players,televisions video cards,and mp3 players have all been found to have additional functionality either disabled or addable with only firmware changes. None of these manufacturers have any responsibility to provide these updates.
pflatlyne said:
I see what they are saying. It may well come down to licensing. If the licensing fee has not been paid for your device,then they CANT update you. If your carrier does not want to buy a device that includes the cost of the licensing fee,then they wont include the driver. Thats how I read it at least.
A class action lawsuit seems rather pointless. HTC has no responsibility to provide any particular functionality in their drivers beyond what is advertised by your carrier. There are many pieces of consumer electronics gear that provide additional functionality with different drivers. Our phones have evdo rev A and GPS as well. They DO have to provide rev A,because they said they would and sold it as Rev A upgradable. We could sue for that if they didnt. GPS however is a bonus.
Take a look at certain linksys routers that have different feature sets with different firmware. Older GeForce cards have advanced features that were locked out in the driver,and only available on Quadro series workstation cards. Many CPUs have features locked out either in the bios or by cutting traces on the actual CPU. Its suspected that some blu-ray readers are actually the writers with a different firmware. (which will be hacked in due time for those lucky bastards if its true =) ) Sound cards,hard drives,modems,stand alone dvd players,televisions video cards,and mp3 players have all been found to have additional functionality either disabled or addable with only firmware changes. None of these manufacturers have any responsibility to provide these updates.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree with you except for two small issues. First, HTC's responsibility to provide functionality is controlled by what HTC agreed to provide in the contract between the carrier and HTC, not by the carrier's advertising. If a carrier were to advertise a functionality for which they did not contract with HTC, then that is the carrier's liability, not HTC's.
Second, advertising a device as rev A upgradeable does not necessarily create a commitment to actually upgrade the device, or even the communications system, to rev A. "Rev A upgradeable" arguably means simply "If we decide at some unspecified time in the future to actually upgrade our system to rev A, this device has the technical capability to also be upgraded to rev A, if we actually so decide at some possibly later time in the future". I do not believe that is a definite promise that a carrier can be held to in a normal lawsuit. In the typical scam class action, the carrier would probably settle the case and give you a coupon. It is obviously not something that binds HTC, as HTC has no control over whether or when a carrier upgrades all or parts of their system to rev A, or whether the carrier approves a software upgrade to a particular model device in order to use rev A.
Related
Great article here:
http://www.brighthand.com/article/Windows_Mobile_SE_Upgrades_No_Big_Deal?site=PPC
But their point of view is based on just a regular Second Edition features. I think that for us, PE users the main concerns are:
1. Crappy BT stack implementation in the current version of WM
Absence of Hands Free profile, rudimental serial port utilization
2. Phone software limitations
No calling card support, no T9, flimsy controls in general
I wonder, if there is any previews of WM Second Edition PE. i was trying to find it with no apparent luck.
The gist of this article though is that it takes time and money even to produce previews etc. Think about it:
1. Manufacturer (eg HTC) has to produce a build that works for each customer
2. Customer (eg O2) has to ensure it's good enough for supply to end-developers
That takes TIME, MONEY and EFFORT.
In the greater scheme of life, PDA's are not as big as mobile phones, and last I looked operators sold more phones than pdas.
I can't see it happening....
I am looking forward to landscape mode support.
Southern_Man said:
The gist of this article though is that it takes time and money even to produce previews etc. Think about it:
1. Manufacturer (eg HTC) has to produce a build that works for each customer
2. Customer (eg O2) has to ensure it's good enough for supply to end-developers
That takes TIME, MONEY and EFFORT.
In the greater scheme of life, PDA's are not as big as mobile phones, and last I looked operators sold more phones than pdas.
I can't see it happening....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's IF they going to distribute this upgrade for free. I think, some people will pay for it reasonable price.
Just came across another thread on Club iMATE site. This is kind of official statement. Check it out:
http://www.clubimate.com/forums/printable.asp?m=2872&mpage=
It's true that some people would pay for an upgrade. However, some, including me, won't.
But if they don't release that update for free, they also won't sell any more units to me or my company. And I don't think they's like to lose customers, who would buy about 200 units.
Losing customers that aren't willing to pay for services rendered isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Johnny Cache said:
It's true that some people would pay for an upgrade. However, some, including me, won't.
But if they don't release that update for free, they also won't sell any more units to me or my company. And I don't think they's like to lose customers, who would buy about 200 units.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmmm.... they sold 100k units without offering an upgrade. I don't think 200 really makes that much different.
We expect the software to be perfect, and to be ready within weeks, and to be free. We complain when it isn't, yet we aren;t willing to pay for it.
Apple started charging for software upgrades, as do most other companies.
Perhaps this is why Dell and HP are saying get stuffed to upgrades - it just isn't worth it.
Even Nokia Service Centre charges £20 to flash up a mobile with the standard new code.
What's even worse is people who have the power to make a knee-jerk decision for their company, without looking at the total cost vs. total return on investment.
Anyway, as much as I like free stuff, I realize developers have to eat too. I don't mind paying for things of value, especially if it is a modest fee as others have charged in the past.
I really don't care about new features. All we need is a working BT stack... and that's something we should get for free. That's what we payed for already.
I mainly want the ability to use my device in landscape for Excel spreadsheets and surfing with PIE. Every application out there that does landscape forces a hard reset on my MDA II and none will work.
This and the hopefully improved Widcomm BT stack of the MDA III have be debating whether or not to upgrade.
Frankly, the number of different versions there's going to be of this phone is starting to worry me.
CPU/GPU: Samsung Exynos / Nvidia Tegra 2
Display: SAMOLED+ / SLCD
NFC: yes / no
Radio: GSM / whatever legacy system the US still insists on using
Carriers: regular international version / a gadzillion heavily branded and slightly but incompatibly modified vanity versions for the major US carriers
That's a lot of possible combinations, even if only a fraction actually come into existence. Probably each will require their own firmware variant as well, resulting in
customer confusion
slower and fewer official updates, with more bugs
fragmented ROM dev community, resulting in reduced ROM choice and maybe even quality
a lot more bricks due to flashing incompatible stuff
even incompatible apps, to viz Tegra optimised games
...
IMHO, this phone alone is worse for Android's dreaded 'fragmented' image than the core OS versions ever were.
Discuss.
(Yes, I like being provocative, no, this is not intended as a troll. Maybe even some good can come of it, like not splitting the XDA forums that much, this time.)
Well like most phones at minimum there will be 2 variants one for GSM other CMDA like the Korean version which includes NFC and also TV (lucky buggers!)
fallenguru said:
Frankly, the number of different versions there's going to be of this phone is starting to worry me.
CPU/GPU: Samsung Exynos / Nvidia Tegra 2
Display: SAMOLED+ / SLCD
NFC: yes / no
Radio: GSM / whatever legacy system the US still insists on using
Carriers: regular international version / a gadzillion heavily branded and slightly but incompatibly modified vanity versions for the major US carriers
That's a lot of possible combinations, even if only a fraction actually come into existence. Probably each will require their own firmware variant as well, resulting in
customer confusion
slower and fewer official updates, with more bugs
fragmented ROM dev community, resulting in reduced ROM choice and maybe even quality
a lot more bricks due to flashing incompatible stuff
even incompatible apps, to viz Tegra optimised games
...
IMHO, this phone alone is worse for Android's dreaded 'fragmented' image than the core OS versions ever were.
Discuss.
(Yes, I like being provocative, no, this is not intended as a troll. Maybe even some good can come of it, like not splitting the XDA forums that much, this time.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
SLCD Never confirmed. Rumor only. Tegra-version in Hong Kong gets Super Amoled +.
Agreed! Its going to be very confusing, Hopefully Samsung says to the various carriers this time around that they are not going to release different versions of the phone, but i dont see that happening. More Options= More Phones sold= More money for Samsung.
EleCtrOx666 said:
SLCD Never confirmed. Rumor only.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True, but seeing as the SGS1 and the NS got an SLCD version, I find it to be credible, at least.
nikzDHD said:
version which includes NFC and also TV (lucky buggers!)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm rather relieved that there's no DVB-H receiver or the like in the phone - wouldn't want to have to pay the TV tax.
fallenguru said:
Frankly, the number of different versions there's going to be of this phone is starting to worry me.
CPU/GPU: Samsung Exynos / Nvidia Tegra 2
Display: SAMOLED+ / SLCD
NFC: yes / no
Radio: GSM / whatever legacy system the US still insists on using
Carriers: regular international version / a gadzillion heavily branded and slightly but incompatibly modified vanity versions for the major US carriers
That's a lot of possible combinations, even if only a fraction actually come into existence. Probably each will require their own firmware variant as well, resulting in
customer confusion
slower and fewer official updates, with more bugs
fragmented ROM dev community, resulting in reduced ROM choice and maybe even quality
a lot more bricks due to flashing incompatible stuff
even incompatible apps, to viz Tegra optimised games
...
IMHO, this phone alone is worse for Android's dreaded 'fragmented' image than the core OS versions ever were.
Discuss.
(Yes, I like being provocative, no, this is not intended as a troll. Maybe even some good can come of it, like not splitting the XDA forums that much, this time.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I disagree with you a lot...
1. The term "Android fragmentation" as it is used in the community has nothing at all to do about a single hardware manufacturer's different hw-configurations. Android fragmentation is about the problem for developers to make their apps compatible with different Android versions (API-levels) and different resolutions/display sizes. App compatibility is not affected by different base-band chips or different display types with same size and resolution.
2. Having different models for different markets has been common for many years, nothing new here. E g Korea has had TV as standard on high-end phones for years.
3. A modern smartphone platform is modular and similar to a PC (Android is Linux-based). There is probably no-one in the world who has exactly the same PC components in their PC as I have in my PC (e g exactly the same CPU, GPU, TV-card, sound card, mouse, memory etc), but stilll my PC works flawlessy. Removing a peripheral circuit as NFC in certain markets to save cost is a no-brainer for testing, integration, developing Custom ROM etc.
4. So far all rumours indicates that i9100 is with Super AMOLED+ and Exynos. So there will probably not be a Tegra 2 in i9100. Tegra 2 seems to be used in i9103 Otherwise it could be a bit confusing since Exynos & Tegra 2 are different SOC's with quite different GPU's.
5. All your stuff about different carriers etc is just strange, there is nothing new concerning Galaxy S2 here compared to other phones. Having different base-band chips in different market (I don't know if Galaxy S2 needs that) is not a problem and could even improve performance since it is easier to tune the antenna for fewer frequency bands.
6. I don't know if a versions with S-LCD will be called i9100 or not, I'd prefere not to have S-LCD with model name i9100, but we'll see what happens. HTC did this with Desire, and that is one of the most popular phones for modding at XDA. So nothing new here.
tjtj4444 said:
I disagree with you a lot...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you really think that app compatibility won't be affected in practice? The way I see it, if a developer wants to be able to say "compatible with / tested on Samsung Galaxy S 2" they'll have to a) know of and b) test on all variants, or at least the major ones. Take Skype as an example, which works from 2.1 on most phones but needs 2.2 on most / all versions of the SGS1. If you want to use the NDK it gets worse - every major game developer'll need a lengthy FAQ about which version of the game goes on which version of the SGS2.
A lot of apps needed fixes to work on low res devices like the original HTC Wildfire, etc.
On phones that are entirely different or at least perceived as such, this is less of a problem - devs can cope, but when technically near-identical phones are sold under different names (or quite different ones under the same name), there's bound to be a lot of consumer confusion atop of that.
Granted, maybe the other markets' models weren't as visible to me before Android. From a consumer perspective, the borders between markets are disappearing, though, thanks to the internet.
That would work, if there were, as for the PC, a common framework for the development of drivers, which are (also) distributed seperately from the hw. Sometimes drivers can be re-used on another phone with minimal modifications, but nowhere near all the time.
I agree with you insofar as I would love to be able to get just a phone, built to order (within limits), that I could install a variety of different Android distributions on. Sadly, that's not a reality yet.
Yes, we'll see.
Maybe it isn't new, but it's still absurd, at least from an European perspective. GSM vs. CDMA is one thing, but limiting specific models to certain frequency bands of the same standard is done purely for market seperation. It's even more stupid than the DVD region codes.
Again, we'll see.
I think having carrier specific versions with ultra minor changes is completely idiotic (looking at you America). It seems the networks there want to get you onto them because of the specific phone instead of having good plans/pricing.
I think the iPhone has it right, one model released worldwide, I wish every other company did that.
As an American, it irritates me, too, that there can't be one version that works in Europe, Asia, and US. Each unit might cost more to make, but it could save money by not having to mfr. 6 different phones instead of one.
I also wonder if Android will ever be truly compatible across multiple devices. Every pc is different, yet they can all run the same Windows or Linux versions, just with different drivers.
Scared27 said:
It seems the networks there want to get you onto them because of the specific phone instead of having good plans/pricing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good pricing/plans in not the philosophy of an american corporation, maximizing profits and keeping share holders happy at all costs is.
fallenguru said:
Do you really think that app compatibility won't be affected in practice? The way I see it, if a developer wants to be able to say "compatible with / tested on Samsung Galaxy S 2" they'll have to a) know of and b) test on all variants, or at least the major ones. Take Skype as an example, which works from 2.1 on most phones but needs 2.2 on most / all versions of the SGS1. If you want to use the NDK it gets worse - every major game developer'll need a lengthy FAQ about which version of the game goes on which version of the SGS2.
A lot of apps needed fixes to work on low res devices like the original HTC Wildfire, etc.
On phones that are entirely different or at least perceived as such, this is less of a problem - devs can cope, but when technically near-identical phones are sold under different names (or quite different ones under the same name), there's bound to be a lot of consumer confusion atop of that.
Granted, maybe the other markets' models weren't as visible to me before Android. From a consumer perspective, the borders between markets are disappearing, though, thanks to the internet.
That would work, if there were, as for the PC, a common framework for the development of drivers, which are (also) distributed seperately from the hw. Sometimes drivers can be re-used on another phone with minimal modifications, but nowhere near all the time.
I agree with you insofar as I would love to be able to get just a phone, built to order (within limits), that I could install a variety of different Android distributions on. Sadly, that's not a reality yet.
Yes, we'll see.
Maybe it isn't new, but it's still absurd, at least from an European perspective. GSM vs. CDMA is one thing, but limiting specific models to certain frequency bands of the same standard is done purely for market seperation. It's even more stupid than the DVD region codes.
Again, we'll see.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i think you're confusing optimization vs compatibility
ph00ny said:
i think you're confusing optimization vs compatibility
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nope, even though the distinction isn't as clear-cut as you might think. Tegra 2 optimised games won't run on other SoCs at all, Firefox Mobile (a freaking browser) will only run on ARMv7+. Even if a lot of apps without low res support somewhat work on low res phones, from the perspective of a customer they "don't work properly" - and that's it.
The fact that different phones support different features is not the problem, the lack of a simple and easy to understand way to communicate these feature differences to the consumer, is. We read spec sheets, regular people as a rule do not. But they'll still want to know why their friend with a German SGS2 can pay the parking fee by touching his phone to a thingamajig, while they, with the UK version, cannot. (Just an example, I've no idea who gets NFC and who doesn't.)
how to know
When you see a retail package, how would you know which version it is? do they show on the box?
hazem77 said:
When you see a retail package, how would you know which version it is? do they show on the box?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I guess the model number would be printed somewhere in the area where the serial number / IMEI and barcodes are. What features that version has and doesn't have you'd have to know yourself.
EleCtrOx666 said:
SLCD Never confirmed. Rumor only. Tegra-version in Hong Kong gets Super Amoled +.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, Sammy announced the HK version as Tegra2/SA+, and then soon after corrected that, stating that HK would be Exynos/SA+
http://hktechnews.com/?p=327
THIS IS JUST MY OPINION:
I don't know why, but it seems to me that people seem to think that they are entitled to get the newest operating systems.
I am not talking about incremental items like 2.3.3 to 2.3.4, 3.1 to 3.2 but major upgrades... Froyo to Gingerbread, Gingerbread to Honeycomb, etc.
If I want to upgrade Windows XP to Windows 7, it will cost me money, and my hardware might not be able to run it. If a Mac user wants to upgrade to Snowleopard, it cost them, too.
I think if we had to pay $49 for a new operating system, we wouldn't be so hard HTC or other manufactures that are slow to release an operating system.
They won't charge because they can't adhere to any established schedule.
LG Optimus 3D (T-Mobile/P920)
Theoretically that could work and provide an incentive to the vendors. They could lower their initial price to buy a device (since the support cost are baked in), but software is still hard and i think customer acceptance of those upgrade fees would be the problem. As long as the industry leader (Apple) gives free OS updates it would be a hard sell to charge for Android updates. The bigger problem for most handset and tablet makers is that they are in a constant churn cycle trying to bring the next shiny new paperweight to market ahead of the competition. Apple has a fanatical user base and is somewhat insulated from competition. If you look at their hardware against say Samsung, Apple is a generation behind in radio and processor technology.
And each of these new churns of the newest hardware causes a hardware maker to have to redo all the device specific software (there's a lot of it) to run Android.
sbrownla said:
They won't charge because they can't adhere to any established schedule.
LG Optimus 3D (T-Mobile/P920)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Who says they have to have a schedule? MS doesn't have a schedule. Also, didn't MS charge for one of the Windows Mobile updates? Pretty sure I'm remembering that correctly.
Well and the reason a lot of us even use Android is that it's perceived (rightly or wrongly) as being more open and inclusive. Part of that openness has been the eventual Open Source release of each version of the operating system.
I'd pay extra for hardware that ran a 100% Open Source version of Android though, with some freeer alternative to Market, etc.
TidBit said:
THIS IS JUST MY OPINION:
I don't know why, but it seems to me that people seem entitled to get the newest operating systems.
I am not talking about incremental items like 2.3.3 to 2.3.4, 3.1 to 3.2 but major upgrades... Froyo to Gingerbread, Gingerbread to Honeycomb, etc.
If I want to upgrade Windows XP to Windows 7, it will cost me money, and my hardware might not be able to run it. If a Mac user wants to upgrade to Snowleopard, it cost them, too.
I think if we had to pay $49 for a new operating system, we wouldn't be so hard HTC or other manufactures that are slow to release an operating system.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In the Windows world things are a bit different. You pay Microsoft only for the OS. The biggest issue to get a new Windows version running on an old pc is drivers. If we translate the Windows world to Android we would pay Google for the OS (and upgrades) and HTC (for example) for the hardware (and drivers). In this world, when a new Android version is released, I can asure you that users will start to chase HTC to write new drivers compatible with the new Android version. And they want it for free.
It would be better to standarize all internal components and connections in devices. And android should contain some generic drivers to at least boot the device and use basic functions (screen, sd card, touch).
I wouldn't mind paying something extra for OS upgrades, but I don't like the idea of paying HTC for an OS upgrade while most of the work was done by Google.
Btw, by buying an HTC Android device, you also donate some bucks to the nice guys @ Microsoft.
Sent from my HTC Flyer P510e using xda premium
As a consumer, unless you enter a contract with a vendor, you are entitled to nothing. However the market forces suppliers to behave in a certain fashion in order to maintain a place in the market. How well a company balances service, vs. cost vs. profit will in the long run determine how well they do in comparison to their competitors. Therefore consumers are in effect entitled to expect some level of support from vendors when they purchase a product.
The problem is , that level of support is undefined, so a vendor has to be careful how they set expectations and consumers have to be realistic in their expectations. It's a hard balance to achieve.
I would love to see the whole concept of mobile devices move to a more PC oriented ecosystem.
Think about it.. Being able to pick and choose which hardware and which OS, and only having to deal with the carrier for service (ala cable providers) would certainly change the way things work. In my opinion for the better.
No more carrier locked phones, no more manufacturer locked OS's. I could go pick up my HTC Phone1 or Samsung Phone9, load up my Android XP and punch in my Verizon credentials and im off.
Crazy concept, i like it. Downsides i could see being increased price in phones. But on the same token, just the fact they are carrier free would drive down the price due to competition.
Would drive down cellular prices too since the only thing they would be competing with would be service area, price and data caps. Similiar to now, but without the contracts tying you in to a phone for 2 years.
Also, side-rant. 2 years for a mobile contract is absurd right now. Mobile tech is exploding, and with major hw improvements within a years time are rolling out, its just not fair.
My buddy just upgraded from his HTC Hero last month. I couldnt imagine still using that relic after having upgraded to an Epic, then an iphone4. Going back to the Hero would be torture.
TidBit said:
THIS IS JUST MY OPINION:
I don't know why, but it seems to me that people seem to think that they are entitled to get the newest operating systems.
I am not talking about incremental items like 2.3.3 to 2.3.4, 3.1 to 3.2 but major upgrades... Froyo to Gingerbread, Gingerbread to Honeycomb, etc.
If I want to upgrade Windows XP to Windows 7, it will cost me money, and my hardware might not be able to run it. If a Mac user wants to upgrade to Snowleopard, it cost them, too.
I think if we had to pay $49 for a new operating system, we wouldn't be so hard HTC or other manufactures that are slow to release an operating system.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's funny that you mention this because I remember Apple charging like $5 to upgrade older ipod touches to the newer OS and people were throwing a fit. They eventually gave the software upgrade away for free. I think everyone feels entitled to the honeycomb upgrade since HTC promised that it was going to be available soon. Nobody wants to buy a new tablet every year. Just look at Apple as an example. They could have easily only made IOS 5 only available for the Ipad 2 and alienated the millions of Ipad 1 owners out there. Instead, they offered the upgrade for both devices so people with the older model can still enjoy some of the new features. I think what everyone here is afraid of is that HTC is going to announce a HTC Flyer 2 in a couple months with a dual core processor and honeycomb/ice cream sandwich.
thetruth1983 said:
It's funny that you mention this because I remember Apple charging like $5 to upgrade older ipod touches to the newer OS and people were throwing a fit. They eventually gave the software upgrade away for free. I think everyone feels entitled to the honeycomb upgrade since HTC promised that it was going to be available soon. Nobody wants to buy a new tablet every year. Just look at Apple as an example. They could have easily only made IOS 5 only available for the Ipad 2 and alienated the millions of Ipad 1 owners out there. Instead, they offered the upgrade for both devices so people with the older model can still enjoy some of the new features. I think what everyone here is afraid of is that HTC is going to announce a HTC Flyer 2 in a couple months with a dual core processor and honeycomb/ice cream sandwich.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I guess you are right. I did buy my HTC Flyer when the price dropped to $299 and I really love it. It is much better than my old Viewsonic G Tablet. I guess if I paid the $499, I would feel a little different.
Google tried the complete unlocked , open source concept essentially with their first Nexus phone, unfortunately it was a flop. The percentage of people that want to tinker with a phone (or tablet) vs. those that just want it to work is really small, otherwise, Apple wouldn't be so successful. I know most if us feel differently because we are passionate about the tech. and customizing.
And one more note. I worked for General Electric doing commercial software development for many years.I understand the business and legal aspect. Consumers are not "entitled" to anything, but..
I also understand that consumers are entitled to feel they are being treated fairly or you will be out of business (unless you have a monopoly , which unfortunately the cell industry behaves like in a lot of instances).
I do have a problem with false or deceptive advertising which this industry engages in fairly routinely.For example HTC announcing that the Flyer would get the honeycomb update and not delivering is deceptive. Verizon's TV ads about speed of network "rule the airways" while not talking about how they throttle your speeds is deceptive. It's not illegal, but it is deceptive and I do think consumers are entitled to the truth at some point.
DigitalMD said:
As a consumer, unless you enter a contract with a vendor, you are entitled to nothing. However the market forces suppliers to behave in a certain fashion in order to maintain a place in the market. How well a company balances service, vs. cost vs. profit will in the long run determine how well they do in comparison to their competitors. Therefore consumers are in effect entitled to expect some level of support from vendors when they purchase a product.
The problem is , that level of support is undefined, so a vendor has to be careful how they set expectations and consumers have to be realistic in their expectations. It's a hard balance to achieve.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think there's an implied agreement that any major defects will be fixed unless you state otherwise. Take for example the HTC logging security issue.
---------- Post added at 03:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:35 PM ----------
DigitalMD said:
Google tried the complete unlocked , open source concept essentially with their first Nexus phone, unfortunately it was a flop. The percentage of people that want to tinker with a phone (or tablet) vs. those that just want it to work is really small, otherwise, Apple wouldn't be so successful. I know most if us feel differently because we are passionate about the tech. and customizing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
FWIW, consumers *do* care about crapware. Friends know I'm an Android developer and the first thing they always ask, without a doubt, is how to remove ESPN or Avatar or other crap from their phones. Especially when people move over from the iPhone world, they are inundated by crapware.
I think the biggest selling point of the Nexus phones SHOULD be that they are mostly crapware-free, although I consider Twitter and Facebook superfluous.
ICS will let you disable system apps, which is going to be a huge bonus for users as long as the carriers don't find a way of blocking that feature.
If you believe that whole "implied agreement" thing, go check out what Sprint customers are dealing with now that Sprint yanked their unlimited data plan out from under them.
Eliminating as you call it ,Crapwear is not going to happen in Android period. You seem to have forgotten, Google is a advertising company. That's where they make the overwhelming majority of their income, about $12.5 billion last quarter. Android is a platform for leveraging that market.
The Nexus One phones were actually targeted toward developers and as such were pretty clean and open. The new Nexus Galaxy is a consumer phone.
Google doesn't make a dime from ESPN and Avatar pre-installs. The money they make on Admob is mostly from apps that users opt to download. Maps, which has some sponsored results, isn't crapware by most people's standards.
If Google had no interest in helping people out with clean phones, they wouldn't have put the ICS feature in to disable system apps.
As for implied agreement, see that those customers are angry. It's not like you're going to sue Sprint (although class actions do happen), but if you advertise one thing and do another, people get mad.
well ...
barry99705 said:
Who says they have to have a schedule? MS doesn't have a schedule. Also, didn't MS charge for one of the Windows Mobile updates? Pretty sure I'm remembering that correctly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
MS most certainly does have a schedule for updating all of their devices to Mango, by the way. And, they are updating every single one built by every single manufacturer. The schedule is available online. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsphone/en-us/features/update-schedules.aspx MS didn't charge end users for updates and never has, but the expectation is that all phones built around the same time period will have similar capabilities with regard to updating. With Android it's, "build first, slap the OS on later and see what works." In other words, it's not an OS-based market, it's a device-based market (I can't stand that word "ecosystem" unless it's used to describe biological phenomena, sorry).
What it boils down to is consumer expectation, as brought up by other commenters.
If Google were to charge for updates, they'd have a greater obligation to fulfill the promises made: update schedules, device lifespan, OS compatibility, etc. That would put more pressure on manufacturers to adhere to Google's whims, instead of allowing manufacturers to do whatever they want in terms of price/OS--that was the freedom and flexibility that the Open Handset Alliance was meant to offer manufacturers.
Android is too unwieldy and manufacturers (and Google) are making more money just throwing things out there and hoping that they stick than they would if they solidify anything related to the software on devices--which is what they would have to do if they began to charge for the OS.
They also run the risk of exposure to even more complicated licensing issues. You thought the Oracle debacle is bad, if Google were charging end users directly it would have been far worse for them because of the money they would have made on IP that came from sources that: (1) didn't put it out there to be 'profitable' to any one particular entity, (2) didn't put it out there in the first place (allegedly), etc.
Read this for a good perspective of where Google and the Android update schedules actually sit at the moment. Google tired to get a group of hardware makers to agree to timely updates and virtually nothing came from it. Google has no control.
http://www.tested.com/news/what-googles-android-update-deal-means-for-fragmentation/2310/
Sad but true.
I wish there were a Nexus with a physical keyboard.
I remain optimistic for the Flyer. I don't expect much from HTC, but I believe one of our independent developers will pick the ICS ball up and run with it.
HTC has shown a previous pattern of leaving their customers behind. I hope it is changing, but I don't count on it.
I'm sure that HTC Sense probably performs faster given it's deep integration into the HTC handsets, but that deep integration comes at a cost to us, as consumer, as an enormous delay in the product update development cycle. I mean we [EVO LTE owners that like Sense] are pining for an update to android that will still leave us one version behind being up-to-date.
So, here's the question, could HTC dismantle Sense into modular apps and retain high performance, or possibly even improve the Sense experience? Google has recently adopted this very strategy in deploying many of it's own features. Gallery, Launcher, and Now are all separate apks. HTC certainly has branding considerations in play, but I rather suspect those considerations would be outweighed by a rejuvination in sales, as this kind of strategy could place HTC at the forefront of the update distribution cycle.
By that I mean, that if the fundamental core of HTC handsets was stock, then google updates could patch out much more quickly. Then as Sense elements (camera update, dialer, whatever) are finished they could be updated ad-hoc as well. Since they would be apps rather than the core os, I rather think they would not fall under the purview of the Sprint technical acceptance certificate.
Moreover, rather than devoting enormous resources to modifying and customizing android for a particular handset line, they could concentrate those resources on creating spectacular HTC-only(ish) apps that they can deploy across a line of their devices.
I rather think that HTC should concentrate their limited, and apparently shrinking, resources into modulizing (coin!) Sense. I'm sure there are problems, such as people putting Sense apks on non-HTC phones, but that would be a very small portion of users, and the majority could simply be restricted by Play Store distribution. Performance considerations should really be a thing of the past, given that we have multi-core processors and 3GB ram on premium handsets.
I have to say, you can see from my mowned profile, I've been a longtime customer of HTC, but I'm really strongly considering dumping them for my next upgrade cycle. The corporation appears to be disintegrating, and the ultra-pixel camera strategy seems to be a bust but they seem committed. As far as product support goes, they seem to be writing checks their butts can't cash: *****-willow commitment to the 18-month product support pledge and update targets that they fail to meet [i.e. the "Sense is 5 is coming by end of December January February!" thread.]
I'm in the pre-planning stages of putting a new radio receiver together. It will be loosely based off of current SDR technology, but with a focus on mobility. The current scanners on the market (made by Uniden and GRE/Whistler) have issue when it comes to digital audio and simulcast trunked radio systems. With a focus on selling a scanner that can handle a wide range of trunking formats and features that don't benefit the basic operation, they try to keep the scanners in the $5-600 price range. There are trade-offs at that point, mainly how radio signals are processed. SDR takes on the role of being in between commercial scanners and professional radios developed by Motorola, Harris etc that reach into the thousands of dollars to own and operate. They can be very good (USRP N200 for example) but require seperate dedicated hardware that is mostly fixed to a desktop environment. There are some portable options that cost less than $20 that use the RTL2832U+R820 chipset. There has also been some Android development for them such as SDR Touch.
The idea that is being thrown around is turning SDR into a truely mobile solution. Our two options for controlling the hardware would be to build a completely brand new OS from scratch (like those used on the professional series radios) or use something that already exists and modify it. The main question is why reinvent the wheel? We could use something like the Raspberry Pi with Linux, but I feel that Android is more friendly for mobile use. My question is, how difficult would it be to branch Android off for this new project and who will be willing to help? I'm not technical as far as coding, and I'm trying to coordinate the various areas that will be required to get this off the ground.