30 replies to this topic

[SoLongSidekick]

Via ZDNet:
" While trying to catch up on my usual tech reading from last week, I stumbled on an excellent article from ExtremeTech titled “It’s time to start paying for Android updates.” The main argument is that Android users should pay a fee, say $10, to their carrier to get the next version of Android on their phone. The advantage of such a system is that carriers suddenly have an incentive to provide Android updates much more quickly to their customers. I think Google should be the one providing the incentive, not the consumer.

We all know how dire the situation is. Android 4.0 (codenamed Ice Cream Sandwich) was released in November 2011. Four months later, and it is installed on just 1.6 percent of Android devices, according to Android Developers. Compare this to Android 2.2 (codenamed Froyo), which a whopping 25.3 percent of Android devices are still running. This fragmentation causes lots of problems, especially for app developers.

The aforementioned article discusses how feasible it is to pay for updates:

For paid system updates to work, they need to be optional. If a user doesn’t want to pay $10 for newer software, they should not be berated with update notifications.

Screw that. The average Android user doesn’t even know his or her phone has Android. The average Android user doesn’t know he or she can update. The average Android user should not have to pay for updates. The average Android user should be nagged to update. The average Android user should be supported by… Google.

The only demographic that might pay is a typical tech geek who doesn’t install custom ROMs on his Android device. Nobody else will. The only way to really get that 1.6 percent number deep into double digits, and quickly, is for Google to pay carriers and OEMs to push updates.

Google should say: “Hey AT&T! For every 100,000 smartphone users that you upgrade to Android 4.0, we’ll cut you a big fat cheque” or “Hey Samsung! The sooner you can offer Android 4.0 on your five most popular phones, the sooner we’ll give you Android 5.0.” These are off the top of my head; I’m sure Google can think of better incentives than I can.

For now, Google seems to be perfectly happy with pushing Android onto as many devices as possible. Most Android users are on Android 2.3 (codenamed Gingerbread, now at 62.0 percent). The company’s suggestions at Google I/O 2011 to push Gingerbread didn’t really work. Yes, Gingerbread now finally has a majority, but most of those devices aren’t even upgrades – they’re just phones that shipped with that version. Something more drastic needs to be done for Android 4.0.

I doubt Google will figure out how to solve the Android updating problem this year, but if it does, chances are the solution will be announced at Google I/O 2012. In other words, the company has three more months to think of a solid plan."


You know, I am kind of dumbfounded, speechless really... . While I gather my IQ points that were just scattered around the room, check out what our very own VantenKiest had to say:

"Open source -
These words have a lot of meaning in the tech world.. open source is free open source is the ability to create fix or support as you see fit.. i read this article and one part shouts out to me..
lets pay $10 to be updated.. I'm sorry no, screw that noise.. we work hard at developing and supporting these devices and software.. but now we are going to pay for what.. the licences? Nooooo its open source then what else... hmm data? We pay data fee for that.. So what, Google's hard work?... Well we have been doing more to get ICS on the Razr than they have."

Leonard brings up an excellent point, why should Google pay for something that at this point has very little to do with them? At this stage in the game it is all on Motorola and Verizon to get us our tasty treat that we were all told (or at least inferred) we would be getting very soon after the code was released late 2011.

Now to play Devil's Advocate; I would (at this point) GLADLY pay Google $10 to receive an AOSP ICS build for the Razr, instead of whatever Blurry mess Moto is sure to pass on to Verizon for an absolutely brutal, inhumane force-feeding of crapware. But we all know that is never going to happen, which is why we all are so lucky to have guys like hashcode and dhacker29 and DT (and the rest of the STS-Dev Team) who did just that.

What do you guys think? Good idea? Bad idea? Did your dog just fart like mine did?


source:

Please Login or Register to see this Hidden Content

[vgupman]

Why would Google provide the incentive? They have very little incentive for providing an incentive. Android powered phones are selling. Sales aren't slowing down because of phones not being upgraded quickly enough. Most people don't really care if their phones get updated to ICS. Google already provides carriers with a damn good free OS for their phones, how would they benefit from paying carriers to roll out updates faster when most people don't care?

And honestly, I don't know for sure, but I'm willing to be Motorola has teams of people working really hard to release ICS, and I'm sure they have a dozen other projects that they're trying to get done so they don't fall behind the competition. It's easy to talk down to the manufacturers from an ousiders perspective. Talk to someone who works at MMI actually doing this stuff. Back in August, someone who works for MMI stayed at my house for a couple of nights, and I got to talk to him about what really goes on and why things get delayed. Nobody ever thinks the manufacturers are working hard on anything, but they are. And then they get crap anyway because some people don't like how they skinned the software.

As for the $10 charge for upgrading, that might provide the incentive to speed things up, but that depends on how many people would actually care enough to pay for an upgrade. It's all about economics. For MMI and Google and Verizon, it all boils down to which decisions will make them the most money. That's just how things are.

Having said that, MMI shouldn't lie to it's customers like it has been. That's just not cool...

[vash_h]

Why should we pay for upgrades we are entitled to?

As for future upgrades like jelly beans, I would gladly pay.. Sort of like upgrading our windows XP to windows 7..

Sent from my XT910

[Z32CM]

Worst idea ever. Nobody in their right mind would pay for something that will get ported later or built from a leaked source for FREE. Mobile carriers already charge a bunch of fees for activation, early disconnection, taxes, overages, etc., plus the cost of the phone... This will only push customers away. We shouldn't have to pay Google or any carrier to do something they are supposed to do anyway.

Sent from my Droid Razr using Tapatalk

[mopar57]

Personally I would pay 10 bucks for ICS and even more to get it into the right developers hands
And it it includes a kernel then everyone will want to buy it before installing a custom rom.
10 bucks is a lot better then buying a 100-200 dollar OS system for a computer.
And Google has to pay the software developers somehow.

But also If i was going to pay, I would want it to happen at the time they first announce....not to keep dragging it on, and changing their minds.

[Raw Dodge]

First off we should never have to pay for updates to our devices. In addition if I did pay 10 dollars for ICS...it better be flawless ... and then you have the issue of who pays for the incremental small updates to 4.0? Should we have to pay because the initial release had bugs or wasn't finished? It bothers me that someone even put that out there as an option.... With what we pay for these devices.. You can buy an excellet laptop or a 46" HDTV....

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[vgupman]

And Google has to pay the software developers somehow.

Google is doing just fine. They don't provide free software to the manufacturers for no reason, they make a ton of money collecting your data (not anonymously) and using it for focused advertising. It's the manufacturers and carriers that take time.

Idk how closely Google works with the manufacturers, but they should keep them updated on what changes and features they're making in order to streamline the planning phase of development.

[DarkestSpawn]

Why should we pay for upgrades we are entitled to?

As for future upgrades like jelly beans, I would gladly pay.. Sort of like upgrading our windows XP to windows 7..

Sent from my XT910

That statement totally just contradicted itself. Plus Windows XP to Windows 7 upgrade costed $100 right off the bat. $10 is WAY better then $100 for an upgrade.

Worst idea ever. Nobody in their right mind would pay for something that will get ported later or built from a leaked source for FREE. Mobile carriers already charge a bunch of fees for activation, early disconnection, taxes, overages, etc., plus the cost of the phone... This will only push customers away. We shouldn't have to pay Google or any carrier to do something they are supposed to do anyway.

Sent from my Droid Razr using Tapatalk

I would pay $10. Every person on this forum could make tiny sacrifices throughout a week to spare $10 for an upgrade, especially when google really is only upgrading the OS majorly once every year. Now if they would charge for patches, thats where I could be concerned about it.

Personally I would pay 10 bucks for ICS and even more to get it into the right developers hands
And it it includes a kernel then everyone will want to buy it before installing a custom rom.
10 bucks is a lot better then buying a 100-200 dollar OS system for a computer.
And Google has to pay the software developers somehow.

But also If i was going to pay, I would want it to happen at the time they first announce....not to keep dragging it on, and changing their minds.

Agreed 100%

First off we should never have to pay for updates to our devices. In addition if I did pay 10 dollars for ICS...it better be flawless ... and then you have the issue of who pays for the incremental small updates to 4.0? Should we have to pay because the initial release had bugs or wasn't finished? It bothers me that someone even put that out there as an option.... With what we pay for these devices.. You can buy an excellet laptop or a 46" HDTV....

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

You could say the exact same thing for Windows. The initial build is sold, then "patches" are free.

But no one makes us buy the phone, most of us dont have self control. ( Im bad at it LOL )

Google is doing just fine. They don't provide free software to the manufacturers for no reason, they make a ton of money collecting your data (not anonymously) and using it for focused advertising. It's the manufacturers and carriers that take time.

Idk how closely Google works with the manufacturers, but they should keep them updated on what changes and features they're making in order to streamline the planning phase of development.

Indeed, the Manufacturers take way to long, and the service provider only makes it worse.

[SoLongSidekick]

First off we should never have to pay for updates to our devices. In addition if I did pay 10 dollars for ICS...it better be flawless ... and then you have the issue of who pays for the incremental small updates to 4.0? Should we have to pay because the initial release had bugs or wasn't finished? It bothers me that someone even put that out there as an option.... With what we pay for these devices.. You can buy an excellet laptop or a 46" HDTV....

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

Uh well the article talks about Google paying for updates, not users. Did you read the entire article?

And you feel like you have a right to every update to your device? So 3 years from now you expect the Lime Sherbert 7.0 update to be sent to your Razr?

I feel like we are entitled to any updates that we were promised, but beyond that every new OS is a gift from the carriers. But once again, the issue at hand isn't users paying for updates, it's Google.

[VantenKiest]

a lot of you seem to be willing to pay for what is OPEN SOURCE there for let me get a free sample and charge you a dollar for it.. and take the credit of the free sample.. people wake the hoozy hazza up.. this is more than just paying to get the newest and greatest.. this is about someone making a profit on something that is open source. ITS LINUX..

YOU DONT PAY FOR WHAT IS OPEN SOURCE
we here at droidrzr are doing FAR more and we dont charge anything.. we have donate buttons for those that want to support.. but really.. this is all free. the device and the data the device uses and the plan to talk on it is all we need to pay for.. no more no less. maybe less.

I feel that if you want to pay for what you use or to hvae the newest as soon as its out go with IOS go with something like that. but here with android a version of linux NO one gets to charge for what it really is.

further more we need to find a constructive way to give carriers and manufactures the incentive to start pusing out the newest updates. they dont really give a flying monkey if we dont have whats new. but for the devs this makes it hard making things for everyone on the android platform.

you all think about it for a while and really try to understand this article and everything its saying the whole damn things just pisses me off.

[vgupman]

I think what google should do is amend their licenses to specify some update timing requirements.

[Droid2drummer]

Via ZDNet:
" While trying to catch up on my usual tech reading from last week, I stumbled on an excellent article from ExtremeTech titled “It’s time to start paying for Android updates.” The main argument is that Android users should pay a fee, say $10, to their carrier to get the next version of Android on their phone. The advantage of such a system is that carriers suddenly have an incentive to provide Android updates much more quickly to their customers. I think Google should be the one providing the incentive, not the consumer.

We all know how dire the situation is. Android 4.0 (codenamed Ice Cream Sandwich) was released in November 2011. Four months later, and it is installed on just 1.6 percent of Android devices, according to Android Developers. Compare this to Android 2.2 (codenamed Froyo), which a whopping 25.3 percent of Android devices are still running. This fragmentation causes lots of problems, especially for app developers.

The aforementioned article discusses how feasible it is to pay for updates:

For paid system updates to work, they need to be optional. If a user doesn’t want to pay $10 for newer software, they should not be berated with update notifications.

Screw that. The average Android user doesn’t even know his or her phone has Android. The average Android user doesn’t know he or she can update. The average Android user should not have to pay for updates. The average Android user should be nagged to update. The average Android user should be supported by… Google.

The only demographic that might pay is a typical tech geek who doesn’t install custom ROMs on his Android device. Nobody else will. The only way to really get that 1.6 percent number deep into double digits, and quickly, is for Google to pay carriers and OEMs to push updates.

Google should say: “Hey AT&T! For every 100,000 smartphone users that you upgrade to Android 4.0, we’ll cut you a big fat cheque” or “Hey Samsung! The sooner you can offer Android 4.0 on your five most popular phones, the sooner we’ll give you Android 5.0.” These are off the top of my head; I’m sure Google can think of better incentives than I can.

For now, Google seems to be perfectly happy with pushing Android onto as many devices as possible. Most Android users are on Android 2.3 (codenamed Gingerbread, now at 62.0 percent). The company’s suggestions at Google I/O 2011 to push Gingerbread didn’t really work. Yes, Gingerbread now finally has a majority, but most of those devices aren’t even upgrades – they’re just phones that shipped with that version. Something more drastic needs to be done for Android 4.0.

I doubt Google will figure out how to solve the Android updating problem this year, but if it does, chances are the solution will be announced at Google I/O 2012. In other words, the company has three more months to think of a solid plan."


You know, I am kind of dumbfounded, speechless really... . While I gather my IQ points that were just scattered around the room, check out what our very own VantenKiest had to say:

"Open source -
These words have a lot of meaning in the tech world.. open source is free open source is the ability to create fix or support as you see fit.. i read this article and one part shouts out to me..
lets pay $10 to be updated.. I'm sorry no, screw that noise.. we work hard at developing and supporting these devices and software.. but now we are going to pay for what.. the licences? Nooooo its open source then what else... hmm data? We pay data fee for that.. So what, Google's hard work?... Well we have been doing more to get ICS on the Razr than they have."

Leonard brings up an excellent point, why should Google pay for something that at this point has very little to do with them? At this stage in the game it is all on Motorola and Verizon to get us our tasty treat that we were all told (or at least inferred) we would be getting very soon after the code was released late 2011.

Now to play Devil's Advocate; I would (at this point) GLADLY pay Google $10 to receive an AOSP ICS build for the Razr, instead of whatever Blurry mess Moto is sure to pass on to Verizon for an absolutely brutal, inhumane force-feeding of crapware. But we all know that is never going to happen, which is why we all are so lucky to have guys like hashcode and dhacker29 and DT (and the rest of the STS-Dev Team) who did just that.

What do you guys think? Good idea? Bad idea? Did your dog just fart like mine did?


source:

Please Login or Register to see this Hidden Content

Lmao @ inhumane force feeding of crap ware!!!!! Lmao! Dude so damned true...love it...!

8-)

You've been tapped by the Drummer...

[mopar57]

Uh well the article talks about Google paying for updates, not users. Did you read the entire article?.

Dont have to read the whole article for this, its in the title

[Z32CM]

a lot of you seem to be willing to pay for what is OPEN SOURCE there for let me get a free sample and charge you a dollar for it.. and take the credit of the free sample.. people wake the hoozy hazza up.. this is more than just paying to get the newest and greatest.. this is about someone making a profit on something that is open source. ITS LINUX..

YOU DONT PAY FOR WHAT IS OPEN SOURCE
we here at droidrzr are doing FAR more and we dont charge anything.. we have donate buttons for those that want to support.. but really.. this is all free. the device and the data the device uses and the plan to talk on it is all we need to pay for.. no more no less. maybe less.

I feel that if you want to pay for what you use or to hvae the newest as soon as its out go with IOS go with something like that. but here with android a version of linux NO one gets to charge for what it really is.

further more we need to find a constructive way to give carriers and manufactures the incentive to start pusing out the newest updates. they dont really give a flying monkey if we dont have whats new. but for the devs this makes it hard making things for everyone on the android platform.

you all think about it for a while and really try to understand this article and everything its saying the whole damn things just pisses me off.

I'm glad you see through this bs. What everyone fails to realize is that this is how it starts. Look at the big picture. It starts with $10 per upgrade, then they will add features that you can only access by paying another fee and so on down the line. Agreeing to this will only make them hungrier.

Finally, someone with an understanding of the philosophy behind Linux. Those who don't will gladly pay for something they had no business paying for to begin with. So go ahead, waste your money.

One last thing, are any of you billionaires? Google is doing better than most. Between ads, and partners alone, Google is making an assload of money. Devs get paid, but go ahead, supplement their income.

By the way, I'm selling air, any takers?

Sent from my Droid Razr using Tapatalk

[Z32CM]

Dont have to read the whole article for this, its in the title

Sent from my Droid Razr using Tapatalk

[DarkestSpawn]

By the way, I'm selling air, any takers?

Sent from my Droid Razr using Tapatalk

Depends, Is it from alaska or the himalayas? The difference in air is what will sell it to me.

=)

[Z32CM]

Depends, Is it from alaska or the himalayas? The difference in air is what will sell it to me.

=)

The air is from Detroit Michigan, but for $10, you can upgrade to air from anywhere in Idaho. For $50 you can sample my home brewed air. It's to die for.

Sent from my Droid Razr using Tapatalk

[SoLongSidekick]

I'm glad you see through this bs. What everyone fails to realize is that this is how it starts. Look at the big picture. It starts with $10 per upgrade, then they will add features that you can only access by paying another fee and so on down the line. Agreeing to this will only make them hungrier.

Finally, someone with an understanding of the philosophy behind Linux. Those who don't will gladly pay for something they had no business paying for to begin with. So go ahead, waste your money.

One last thing, are any of you billionaires? Google is doing better than most. Between ads, and partners alone, Google is making an assload of money. Devs get paid, but go ahead, supplement their income.

By the way, I'm selling air, any takers?

Sent from my Droid Razr using Tapatalk

Dude, the article is about GOOGLE paying for upgrades, NOT US.

Dont have to read the whole article for this, its in the title

Haha well I thought so too but I guess not.

[Z32CM]

Dude, the article is about GOOGLE paying for upgrades, NOT US.





Haha well I thought so too but I guess not.

Sent from my Droid Razr using Tapatalk

Wow. The argument is for USERS to pay and the OPINION is for GOOGLE to pay. I ready YOUR words, did you?

[Droid2drummer]

As crazy as it may sound to some, If!!!!! We were given the option to pay, I would pay a small sum to whomever ( google?) If!!!( again) the software was worthy of major improvements of features as well as speed etc..However I would NOT!!pay for some measly update or patch to fix broken or substandard preexisting stock... So.. Regardless of the source, if i had a chance to get it muchos earlier I would if the above factors were in play..

8-)

You've been tapped by the Drummer...