Android 4.0 updates: It is all about the money

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/mobile-news/android-40-updates-it-is-all-about-the-money/6191?tag=content;feature-roto

by minecraftman • 15 years ago

42 38 15 years ago

untog4• 15 years ago

Was there ever any doubt that it was all about the money? If it wasn't then what is it- suicidal malice on the part of Samsung?

The point isn't that it's "about the money"- every decision a major company makes is. It's that it's short sighted- Samsung may yet lose money because people don't trust them any more.

nextparadigms2• 15 years ago

Very short-sighted indeed. It seems Samsung believes more in next-quarter revenues than in life-long customer value.

untog4• 15 years ago

Well, it might work for them. They'd lose the HN crowd and other "techiphiles", but Mr. Average Joe going into the phone store will still pick up a Samsung if the price is right.

Not saying I agree with it, but there is a possible logic in there. A dangerous game, though, and it's not like Samsung is teetering on bankruptcy- I don't see what would warrant them to behave this way.

schraeds2• 15 years ago

Aren't we missing the point a bit my singling out Samsung? This problem is much more pandemic to Android as a whole. What happened to the Android Update Alliance?

What percentage of iPhones are compatible and upgradeable to iOS 5 release on day 1 ? A very high percentage.

untog4• 15 years ago

What percentage of iPhones are compatible and upgradeable to iOS 5 release on day 1 ? A very high percentage.

Of course, but I'd say that it isn't a valid comparison- how many Samsung iPhones were updatable on day one? None, because they don't exist.

Apple (and this applies to their computer business too) benefits greatly from a totally synchronised hardware and software platform that excludes absolutely every third party. Android is a totally different beast.

You're right though- "Mr. and Mrs. Average" might be asking these questions because what do they know/care about the different approaches Google and Apple take? But also, what do they care about software updates? I'm not sure what the answer to that is.

nextparadigms2• 15 years ago

Apple can wait until their OS is really ready, though, with its "beta" versions, and as soon as it's ready to be put on the iPhone, they launch the iPhone.

Android on the other hand is launched as open source, and then the manufacturers have to take it and upgrade to it. What Google could do is keep Android theirs for longer, maybe call it beta, too, like Microsoft does with Windows as well, and 6 months later they could launch it at once with many manufacturers.

It's won't change the timing, only the perception that everyone got Android faster.

bookwormAT• 15 years ago

what is "day 1"? The day that iOS 5 got updated to devices from Apple?

Then we could say that day 1 for Samsung's Android 4.0-based software is the day that Samsung updates the first of their devices.

There is for sure a problem with many phone manufacturers not supporting their devices as long as they could. But this has nothing to do with the software that runs on the devices. When it comes to "time until update", the comparison with iOS and Android makes little sense.

Because iOS is a complete operating system, while Android is just the base of Samsung's operating system.

Some of the core applications of the device are not part of android. Some are proprietary from Samsung. Some are proprietary from Google and they get updated about once per month, even if the Android version you are running is not the most recent.

georgemcbay• 15 years ago

I can't speak to the Samsung situation specifically but I was a huge original Motorola Droid fan but haven't bought a Motorola device since because of their practices post-Droid.

I'm personally more concerned with locked bootloaders and the like because as long as the latest version of Cyanogenmod can easily be installed on my phone, I'm good, but for non-hackers being able to officially upgrade to at least the next major version (assuming it releases within 1.5 years of the phone) seems fair.

Motorola has since reversed course on the bootloaders and is being bought by Google, so I'll probably give them a second chance someday, but your basic point is solid -- these decisions do impact whether or not the consumer will stick with your brand in the future. I've seen it from friends as well as from my own situation.

Screw me once, shame on you, screw me twice, shame on me.

ryanbraganza• 15 years ago

There are two devices in question here - the Galaxy S and the Galaxy Tab. Both of these are touchwiz devices. Samsung claims that adding TW to ICS will require more hardware (in particular, RAM) than these devices have.

One option would be to remove TW - the nexus s and galaxy s are near identical in hardware spec but the nexus s will be updated to ICS. The main difference being the nexus s is non-TW. However, for samsung, this is not really a viable option. Going from TW to ICS is a major change - things work differently under TW than stock android.

Their best "option" (ignoring costs) would be to find a way to minimise the amount of RAM TW uses and enable ICS on these older devices.

The galaxy s has already received froyo and gingerbread upgrades. What do people think is an "acceptable" upgrade timeframe?

jsz02• 15 years ago

Maybe paid upgrades are the answer?

20 million devices, $30 for the ICS update, 5% take rate = $30 million dollars.

Considering random teenagers in web forums can produce pretty good functional ports there's no way it will cost Samsung more than a few hundred thousand dollars to do the development work. Maybe they have to give the carriers a cut to cover their support costs/retraining/etc. Still a good financial incentive for Android OEMs not to abandon their older devices as quickly.

Macha• 15 years ago

I'd imagine that the amount of people who care enough about what version of the OS they are running to pay $30 for an OS upgrade and lack the technical skills to install a custom ROM is a rather small number.

And if they care that much, they may even prefer the custom ROM, without TouchWiz.

jsz02• 15 years ago

Even if it's only 1% that's still $6 million bucks. I suspect there are lots of people like me who have the technical ability to flash a custom ROM but just don't want to spend the time and effort on it. Reading through a 200+ page forum thread and dealing with the rough edges of these custom ROMS requires an investment of time. There are also all the business/enterprise IT departments who aren't going to touch a random custom ROM they found on the Internet. They need some official upgrade path. Most companies don't want to buy a new fleet of phones very 2 years.

pm90• 15 years ago

Honestly? They get an OS for free (unlike Apple), and they can't even keep their old devices updated? I understand that there are costs for porting, but surely that pales in comparison to making your own OS

schraeds2• 15 years ago

Considering that every major Android manufacturer behaves in a similar fashion tells me that is it a problem for the entire platform.

Joeri• 15 years ago

They get free code drops, but that's probably why it's so expensive for them to do upgrades. Samsung has to merge their customizations with each new version, and they have to adapt the Android base code too their hardware. If they don't customize they have no competitive edge, buy if they do they have a harder time upgrading to new Android versions. Apple has it easier, with developers knowing ahead of time the exact hardware their code will run on.

drivebyacct2• 15 years ago

It's true, but I have to marvel at how slow they are or how poorly or dirtily encapsulated their modifications must be. The CM team already has ports running on many devices and is in progress on getting many of their features and customizations merged in. Enough that I was shocked yesterday at several things my phone did because of the CM9 kang I'm running. And these are all a bunch of guys (I don't know of any CM female devs to be honest) working in their spare time.

bonzoesc• 15 years ago

I suspect that the way the carriers each demand slightly different feature checklists and releasing a new phone every month (c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Android_devices#Samsung and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTC_phones#A_Series_.28... ) means their hardware engineering budget is much larger than Apple's, and their software budget isn't far behind.

The margins on Androids simply aren't high enough to justify the costs of making one-time customers into fans or repeat buyers.

hub_4• 15 years ago

Maybe they should start selling phones instead of carrier products...

pixie_• 15 years ago

Reminds me of Windows Mobile back in the day. It ran on lots of devices, but getting an update to the latest version was a crapshoot.

Lewisham• 15 years ago

I think it's worth mentioning that it's highly unlikely Google is deaf to these complaints. It is, after all, why the Nexus line exists, which does seem to be supported for updates for the two year upgrade cycle.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that if the buyout of Motorola Mobility is approved, I think you'll see Gootorola performing updates as well.

The situation isn't dire. The handset manufacturers are going to find that they're painting themselves into a corner.

megablast2• 15 years ago

I wonder how many people really care? I know we do, but most people don't read blogs about ICS, and are happy to finally have a smart phone that has fb and the real internet.

I have a nexus one, which will not be updated. I don't really care, but it is not my main phone either.

hub_4• 15 years ago

I do care, it is my main phone and it show Google is deaf to that too.

colig• 15 years ago

It's bad for developers when a substantial proportion of handsets are running older versions, which slows down adoption of newer APIs.

oflannabhra• 15 years ago

Android handset makers: "Yeah, we're not putting in the expense of paying our developers to release updated versions of Android for each handset we make, mainly because of all the crap we develop and overlay on top of the OS."

This article: "Oh, yeah guys, that makes total sense! And if you do want a new version of android running, you can put in the time yourself! See, everything works for everybody."

Yeah, I get that you can get what you want on your phone, but that doesn't mean that these companies aren't doing their customers a disservice, or that we should just give them a pass.

If this were a desktop OS, there's no way manufacturers could get away with something like not even attempting to bring the most recent version to their customers. (Although that's a weak comparison, I still believe Google could take some lessons from Microsoft in how to relate to manufacturers).

InclinedPlane• 15 years ago

And Apple's reason for not updating the iPhone 3G and older models to iOS 5 is...?

frou_dh• 15 years ago

They have a quarter the RAM (128MB) of the current models. Even iOS 4 is somewhat stripped down on them.

I'm sure Apple loves nudging people to buy a newer iPhone, but no informed observer should be surprised enough to be angry about lack of iOS 5 on these several generation old devices.

I have and use a 3G myself. On the whole, it has been well supported since 2008.

lparry• 15 years ago

Maybe because they struggled to run iOS 4 usably?

Can you name a handset that received official software updates for longer than the iPhone 3G? Seems odd to attack what is probably the longest officially supported phone yet... Sounds like axe grinding to me

hub_4• 15 years ago

Solution:

-less models/SKU (by a multiple fold)

-less customizations (ie use stock Android)

That way you can focus on making your customers happy.

Android 4.0 updates: It is all about the money

Related Stories