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 Just ask Samsung, who made $5 billion last quarter selling devices running outdated Android 2.x. Or ask HTC, who got crushed by the carriers after offering devices with unlocked Android bootloaders.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.
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.