Hacker News Reader

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,

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.

I bought the same phone, it's incredibly sad that OEMs do this.

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.

Please tell me how to get ics . Btw, there have been nexus phones that have taken a while to get updates.

With loads and loads of bugs, dragonzkiller's CM9 ROM is incredibly alpha.

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.

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.

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.

Why don't you read the howtos and compile your own version? It's not that scary and you get bleeding edge.

And I trust a open-source beta more than I trust most "production grade" proprietary tools.

I'm using the official CM 7.3 release on my HTC Desire. I wouldn't classify it as 'release' quality software.

... which isn't surprising, since CM 7.3 doesn't exist.

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 ?

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.

>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.

Because they have literally hundreds of handsets to support, as opposed to about 4

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.

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.

Yes. This is precisely the reaction that will hurt, if not destroy, Android unless it is addressed.

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.

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.

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"?

Apple gives free updates.

An update would be profitable if they charged for it.

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...

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.

The next phone you buy will not come from the OEM that screwed you out of an update.

Theoretically, at least.

They are maximizing shareholder value though. Each OEM is competing with the other OEMs producing for Android, and creating a new Android update for the older phones doesn't increase sells if another OEM releases a phone that has better specs in addition to having the newest OS.

Whenever any of my friends go shopping for a new Android phone, they immediately try to find the one with the highest specs. OEMs aren't going to waste time releasing an update for a phone that won't make them money anymore, they're going to spend time instead on making better hardware that will make money.

They're only maximizing it for one quarter at a time. They're losing repeat business to competitors, primarily Apple. Why would I want to buy a second product from a company that has let me down once already?

I've been wondering if this is why Android growth in the US stalled last quarter as the people who bought Verizon Droids in fall 2009/early 2010 fall out of contract and pick something other than a Droid (i.e an iPhone) when they renew.

Apple gets a lot of things, obviously. Making the updates backwards compatible means more people are using the current version, and that means feature uptake time is minimized. Apple's intention is that supporting your hardware for a longer period of time makes it a more attractive purchase.

Android phone manufacturers do not care about this. They are not in the business of promoting the operating system or cultivating a developer base. They want to sell hardware. They sell hardware by introducing new models with new features, not porting those same features to older models that have already been sold.

The maximal return under the Android model is to deliberately obsolete your older hardware so people purchase new phones.

that's flawed short term logic. I will never buy another android phone from someone like motorola. My phone is about a year old. Still under contract, and I can't even get ICS. I don't have the option of buying another phone right now!

Why is that? Your contract allows you to change phones at any time, you just can't get another subsidy or cancel your service without a fee until the extant contract expires. You are free to purchase another phone, second-hand or new, without cell company subsidy and switch to it.

And you think that is a good situation for Android users? Want the new OS, buy a new phone without a subsidy. That is one hell of a tag line for Android

That's what you get for trusting your carrier. Luckily you can get Android devices that you have control over yourself.

> Luckily you can get Android devices that you have control over yourself.

Forgive me for asking something that some googling could answer, but... is there a good such device (sans rooting) that has a keyboard?

I am using the Xperia Pro from Sony, am very happy with it. Bought it unbranded and unlocked, has a great hardware keyboard, and was updated to ICS two weeks ago. The only downside is the rather small amount of builtin memory.

This is true, but that is my point. Most people don't want control, they want a phone that does the latest and greatest. This makes the iphone a much better choice for most, including myself.

Isn't that just another way of saying most people don't think through the long-term consequences of their choices?

Want Siri? Buy the iPhone 4S without a subsidy.

Sure worked for Apple...

You know perfectly well that Apple handles this issue much better than the Android stakeholders. And I am an Android user.

And vendors like Motorola probably don't care about you and your situation. From their perspective, they likely see two things

1) a still growing cell phone market 2) a rapidly growing Android market

As long as the market's still growing, and as long as the vast majority of Android users aren't disgruntled about being left behind, their efforts are best spent on building new phones and acquiring new customers.

I'm curious how many people purchasing a new Android or iOS device even know it can be upgraded. Apple has features in iTunes and now in the phones themselves to advertise new versions and strongly encourage users to upgrade. I'd wager most Android users, because their phones never advertise updates to them, are aware it can even be upgraded and, thus, aren't the least bit put off by these vendors apparent negligence.

Until the market stops growing, or until the vast majority of users get angry about being left behind, vendors like Motorola have zero incentive to spend time or capital on maintaining old devices.

" Motorola have zero incentive to spend time or capital on maintaining old devices."

You are making a large assumption when you say this. Your assumption is that it won't hurt them in the long run. Maybe that is true, but it's a risky bet to make. I certainly won't buy another android phone. Maybe most normal users will, but I'm skeptical of that.

Here's how normal users will realize they aren't getting updates, because it happens to me often. Somehow they learn about some cool app they want and they go to the Play store to get it. But they can't find it. It doesn't show up on their search! It won't take long for them to figure out that they can't get it because it doesn't work for their old version of android.

This happens to me about once a month.

Here's how normal users will realize they aren't getting updates, because it happens to me often. Somehow they learn about some cool app they want and they go to the Play store to get it. But they can't find it. It doesn't show up on their search! It won't take long for them to figure out that they can't get it because it doesn't work for their old version of android.

Yes, but is there anything that enables them to make the cognitive leap from "my phone runs an old version of Android" to "my phone should have been updated to a new version of Android"?

What's to keep them from instead coming to the conclusion of "my phone is old, I should buy a new one"? You assume they understand what "Android" is, who creates Android, who creates their phone, and that the thing running on their phone that's called "Android" can be upgraded but the entity that created their phone prevents that from happening.

Many people are just buying a phone. Heck, many people are just getting a plan which happens to give them a free phone. They don't, and have no desire to, understand the nuances of the phone they just got. It makes calls, browses the internet, and may let them install these "app" things.

And what's to say some of the people who do understand some of these nuances don't erroneously blame Google and Android rather than their phone's manufacturer?

I really do bet most people out there just say "damn, my phone's old" and go try and buy a new phone as soon as they're able. Which is a win for companies like Motorola.

You could be right, but that is a risky gamble to take for the manufacturers and Google. I think most people will realize they have a substandard experience because they use their phones in social settings and will easily see that their friends have apps that won't work on their phone and they will have a friend that can explain why.

For tech geeks, maybe. For the majority of the population? I doubt it. There are still people who aren't sure what version of Windows or OS X they're running on their laptops. Now they need to know which version of Android their phone is on?

"Your assumption is that it won't hurt them in the long run."

The entire notion of "the long run" has implicit in it various "ceteris paribus" assumptions that are very frequently false.

In particular, the "long run" makes little sense in the context of rapidly changing business and technology fields, and even less sense when it comes to mercurial public opinion.

On the other hand, the one thing that consistently has a good long-run outcome is to make money now, since, "in the long run", not only can accumulated capital stick around, but it will usually even appreciate.

I'd wager most Android users, because their phones never advertise updates to them, are aware it can even be upgraded and, thus, aren't the least bit put off by these vendors apparent negligence.

Huh? I've been on custom ROMs for almost 2 years now, but I remember when I was on the stock ROM, I got a nice little notification in the notification bar when an update was available.

I got a nice little notification in the notification bar when an update was available.

My point was more that most phones aren't receiving updates at all. No update means no notification.

Yes it is. It's stupid, shortsighted, and it is going to cost them money in the long term. They are still doing this.

But I don't understand about you not having option of buying phone. They won't allow you to use different phone with your sim or anything? You can just drop to a store, buy unlocked Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy S III, Xperia S or something, and use it right?

Apple gets happy developers who can use the latest & greatest APIs and support the latest & greatest features/services Apple offers. Android OEMs have no incentive. They don't get a cut of app or ad revenue. To this point at least lack of updates have not caused them any major problems. As we move further and further away from 2.x though I do think it will start to become a bigger issue. On the plus side it looks like Google made very few changes to 4.1 so we should see devices shipping with it by the end of the year this time.

>I think you are a troll, based on this and prior discussions, and this is the last time I'm responding to you.

Nice of you to edit and sneak that in there. All I did was mention how it's in the interest of OEMs to push new devices. You continue to call me names, not reply to what I'm saying and be rude. Apparently you learned nothing from the last time you did this to me. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4158857

Apple owns both the iOS platform and devices. I think Apple supports their older hardware because they want to reduce fragmentation of their iOS platform. Apple plays the long game.

Google owns the Android platform, but only a few Android devices. The carriers and device OEMs just want to pump 'n' dump devices. They don't care about the long term health of the Android ecosystem.

This isn't your personal email account. Hacker News is about informed discussion and debate. If you don't want people to engage you I have two suggestions; 1) Don't post your comments here. 2) Stop being intentionally provocative.