I sit here seven months after Google released the source to ICS, and still the T-Mobile Samsung Galaxy S II has not been upgraded to Android 4.0, and today the rumor is it will be at least another month before TMo and Samsung can get their act together.
Android may have lots of Google induced issues, but it certainly seems that 90% of the issues most users have comes from terrible carrier bloatware and infrequent, late, or just never occurring carrier updates.
I agree completely. Fragmentation isn't something Google wants; we waste a ton of engineering effort supporting old devices. For example, Google Wallet has to support Gingerbread for at least two years because one carrier won't upgrade their Nexus S to Ice Cream Sandwich. That's one extra test run for every commit for two years, eating up thousands of hours of CPU time, physical devices, and developer patience. Multiply that by about 50 for apps that run on all phones, not just ones with special NFC hardware...
The Nexus One is two and a half years old at this point, it really can't be looked at as a "developer" phone anymore, even if it will works well for casual usage. And it's stuck with only 512MB of built-in flash to store the image. ICS as shipped on other device simply won't fit. It would have to be a custom spin, which for a device this far removed from the state of the art just isn't worth anyone's time.
I have a smartphone that is 3.5 years old already, and it's still getting the latest OS updates. It wasn't even sold as a developer phone either. I'll leave it to the reader to guess what phone it is.
No matter how you spin it, Android OS updates are one big pile of fail, even if you buy a Nexus device.
The iPhone 3GS is not quite three years old, and is the oldest device supported by iOS 5. Its predecessor is just under 4 years old, and is not. (i.e. your 3GS "got" the latest update, it isn't "getting" new ones and will be obsolete at the next major revision too). So Apple products are better supported by about a year.
Actually, you can look at this as an aliasing issue in the data. The 3GS and Nexus One were both the "oldest" supported phones at the release of a major OS version, and that happened about just about exactly 2 years for both of them. One fell on one side of the support decision and one on the other.
The "pile of fail" flameage is beneath this site. Stop that, you're polluting our nice community with your garbage. Argue. Don't sling poo.
Note that it isn't just the carriers that suck, it's the manufacturers too. Many of them put their own tweaks on Android which means that they have to do updates on their end to get Android upgrades.
It's absurd that I as a developer am forced to release for 2.2 at this point. 95% of my iOS customers are on 5.0 or better, and 88% of them are on 5.1 which came out in March. I think roughly 20% of android is still on 2.2, and most are on 2.3. Seems pretty silly when 4.0 came out 7 months ago.
> Note that it isn't just the carriers that suck, it's the manufacturers too
Carriers have absolute control over the consumer sales channels, and that gives them all the power. The carriers demand extreme control over the hardware and software pushed through those sales channels, and the manufacturers (other than Apple) have no choice but to give them that control because that is how you win in this business. Just ask Samsung, who made $5 billion last quarter selling devices running outdated Android 2.x. Or ask HTC, who got crushed by the carriers after offering devices with unlocked Android bootloaders.
If you're a manufacturer, you win by being the one who makes the carriers the most money per customer per month.
So how does ICS help Samsung make more money for Verizon? How does upgrading old devices to ICS help Samsung make more money for Verizon? If you're Samsung, that's the only question you're trying to answer.
The reality is that ICS does not help Samsung or any other manufacturer make more money for Verizon, and that's why ICS adoption has been so low.
The problem is that the manufacturers (other than Apple) have little desire to change this business model. If (and when) Samsung begins to defy the carriers, LG and Motorola and HTC will trip over themselves to take Samsung's place and become the next darling of the carriers.
> Or ask HTC, who got crushed by the carriers after offering devices with unlocked Android bootloaders.
I generally agree with you about the power of carriers, but this HTC bootloader thing is an irritating myth. Samsung's devices have been consistently more hackable than HTC's for the entire period in question, not to mention that they topped it off by hiring cyanogen. HTC has had their issues (too-large device portfolio, not matching the SGS2, etc.), but bootloaders were a blip, either way.
>Carriers have absolute control over the consumer sales channels
In the US. But here, on the other side of the pound, there's hardly any carrier specific additions or subtractions to/from android, just the manufacturers. The big EU markets have some (like Germany, France, UK), but unlocked phones are still always available, and many customers opt for those.
I think you're right about the situation when talking about North America, though.
Personally I've been burned by both HTC and LG on slow or no updates, so I will never by an Android phone that's not a nexus device again.
This is why I think Google should release major versions of Android only once a year, so 4.0 last fall, 5.0 this one, 6.0 fall 2013, and so on, instead of twice per year (with some anomaly in the Honeycomb period, which wasn't open sourced).
Manufacturers and carriers would have to upgrade fewer times (and hopefully more devices), and the vast majority of users should only be 1 version behind.
Wow. That is very disappointing. The one reason why I stayed with my T-Mobile service was the free hotspot feature of my htc sensation 4g. I certainly won't be upgrading to its now, and will likely leave T-Mobile when my deal ends. Sure the others charge as well, but my T-Mobile service was already a compromise of poor coverage for me.
Yeah, I'm sure there are lots of people who have no idea that their free tethering wasn't intentional (or, if intentional, that intentions had changed).
If you want ICS anyway, CM9 and AOKP are coming along reasonably well for the Sensation (including the T-Mobile variant), but that's only a temporary solution, of course.
I have a Galaxy S II on t-mobile and I got the upgrade to ics last month. This may be because I'm in the UK, but I wonder how you're trying to do the upgrade. Are you aware that you have to use the Kies application to install the upgrade?
A few weeks ago, I bought an HTC One S unsubsidised from T-Mobile. The cost? $599. Friends thought I was crazy. You can get it for $199 on monthly contract! But do you know how much I pay per month? $30. For unlimited texts, web and 100 minutes of calls. I'll make up the difference within months.
If Google can make this kind of thing easier, I'm all for it.
I got this plan last November. As of last November, it required a SIM from either, get this, Walmart, or 1-800-TMobile. You can't use a SIM from a T-Mo retail store. You can't buy a SIM from Walmart, but you can buy a $20 T-Mo phone and use the SIM from that. But don't activate it, until it's in your smartphone. Or you can get the SIM for $5 from 1-800-TMobile.
Also, check out the plans details closely. They don't mention it, and the 1-800-T-Mobile CSRs won't tell you, or don't know, but you can't tether on this plan, at least, not if you're using the Samsung Galaxy SII and probably not with any/most Tmo phones (unless you decide to root the phone and disable/uninstall/freeze the TetheringManager app.)
Actually what I like is that my bills are even less than $30 per month. Because I am often, many weeks, almost entirely in a heavy wifi environment, I just don't prepay the next 30 days until I really know I need a GSM phone service. Most days I use either GrooveIP, or CSIP to make calls over wifi. If I am not in a wifi area for a few hours, calls go to google voice. AND if I know where I am driving to, I can even use Google Maps when I am not in a wifi zone by precaching the map data in Google Maps. (And even if I don't have prepaid GSM minutes, 911 will still work.)
If you don't pay for the phone number at least once every 90 days, they recycle the number.
For the past seven months, my T-Mobile charges have been $60.00. Not each month. Total.
You know, I probably use less than 100 minutes of talk time a month... But I could easily go over that getting stuck on e.g. a customer service line for an hour or something.
Oh, you're right! Last year, HTC was including T-Mobile's band on their high-end devices (Sensation, Flyer, etc.), but this year they've moved towards AT&T bands (unsurprisingly, I suppose - especially since T-Mobile is refarming 1900MHz and dialing back the 1700 MHz network soon).
Credit for acknowleding their mistake, but man it took a long time for Google to stop mutilating their own feet with the flagship phone crap and lip servicing AOSP, forcing manufacturers to add sizzle to compete.
It should be interesting to see what a product sold to consumers rather than wireless carriers will look like. My guess is that they will be less expensive and have less bullet-point features; carriers need expensive phones to justify an expensive ETF (and cost to switch), but consumers just want to buy something inexpensive and replace it in a year or so.
Note that "not messed with by your carrier, no bloatware, no extra skins you don't want and more timely updates direct from Google" is a fairly strong bullet point for some.
At the very least this will raise the bar so everyone else will have to do better.
I have a Samsung tablet where I really don't want some of their crud. (The device came with no less than 3 apps named "Music", and two named "Books".) I'd strongly prefer the vanilla Honeycomb skin and not Touchwiz, but I don't get that choice.
What they could have done is make it possible to turn off. And sell it in the Android market for other non-Samsung devices. (If it is that good then other people will want it.)
I've got a handful of Samsung devices and I'm sick and tired of touchwiz on all of them. It's not consistent between devices and versions, it duplicates features and software that's already built in, and it's bloated/slow.
The question then becomes, how big a chunk of the general public cares about a phone "now messed with by your carrier, no bloatware, no extra skins" etc.?
I think that most people who understand what that means would want it, but how many are really savvy enough understand?
> ... but how many are really savvy enough understand?
It doesn't matter! If they don't then Google's direct approach will be a commercial failure, and nobody is any worse off.
But remember that the people who write reviews, publish articles and are the recommender in their circle of friends and colleagues are more likely to care about this sort of thing.
But you can't omit the hidden cost in your cell phone bill every month that is present regardless of whether you buy your phone from the carrier (subsidized) or from Google (unsubsidized), which will automatically make the phones sold by Google much more expensive.
The only real solution to this problem is for Google to become an MVNO and start selling cheaper cellular service (cheap enough to get people to switch en masse and bring about some real change in the market).
Customers not on a contract and willing to avoid AT&T, Verizon and Sprint can avoid quite a bit of fees. E.g. T-mobile has a $30 plan for 100 minutes, 5GB of 3G (and EDGE after that), and unlimited SMSs. The 100 minutes is problematic, but I use Google Voice so I can just use my computer for phone calls at home. And at $0.10 per minute overages, it's still cheaper than any of the contract plans.
There are also other carriers in the US with cheap plans if you're willing to shop around.
This by itself would now be difficult for me. I have an unlimited (grandfathered) data plan from Verizon with 4G. I know several people who have it now, and they would never go back to 3G. Any MVNO that Google creates is going to have to support the latest technology.
There have been rumors of Apple creating their own cellular company - now would be the right time. Create a 4G-only cellular company that provides unlimited (HD) voice, texts, and data for one flat rate, Apple-style, with no contracts.
It's actually T-Mobile's HSPA+ network, which is somewhere between 3G and 4G. In theory, it should go up to 45Mbit down -- I've never gotten more than 10, but that's still plenty for my usage.
I bought a Galaxy Nexus from Google about a week ago for $399 from Google Play. Completely worth it, as it's unlocked and it runs pure ICS and will be updated whenever Google releases an update.
if i remember correctly, this was the original vision for android. the nexus one (thanks bgentry) was initially only sold through google's online store, and then the carriers got it and eventually google shut down their online store. It's good to see google taking back some control.
between google and apple surely there is enough influence that together they can bully the carriers into sucking less.
The main problem here is consumers don't want to pay $400 when they can pay $200. If they're going to stick with their carrier for the long haul the 2 yr contract isn't really a problem. It comes down to upfront cost and the carrier will always win at that game.
I thought the problem (in the US) was that At&T or Verizon don't want this model to work, and don't make the plans attractive, so you end up paying more for the phone and still end up paying the same overburdened service cost.
Also, that available primarily online only phones don't sell nearly as well as hands on, in person sales.
This strategy seemed to have not worked so well earlier. I guess seeing how subsequent Nexus devices going through the carriers have been mangled, lack upgrades, etc -- leads them to think they just have to do it anyway, and try for the long game.
AT&T is probably going to be pushed to do so by the continued existence of T-Mobile. We're lucky that deal didn't get through, or you can be sure you wouldn't be able to have SIM-only plans.
My guess is Verizon will block this point-blank, and refuse to activate the phones. It'll take a change in the legal landscape to compel them to do so. They already have Android phones coming out of their ears, plus the iPhone, so they have no need to play nice with Google, particularly if Google isn't willing to use Motorola to play hardball.
I sit here seven months after Google released the source to ICS, and still the T-Mobile Samsung Galaxy S II has not been upgraded to Android 4.0, and today the rumor is it will be at least another month before TMo and Samsung can get their act together.
Android may have lots of Google induced issues, but it certainly seems that 90% of the issues most users have comes from terrible carrier bloatware and infrequent, late, or just never occurring carrier updates.