Tablets are expensive. I cannot afford to buy a tablet every year. So I want a tablet that is future proof. The 10 inch tablets that others will release this year will have an outdated operating system on them and will still cost many hundreds of dollars. I do not want to spend hundreds of dollars on an outdated operating system. I love Android, but this terrible to the extreme.
I love that people accuse Apple of planned obsolescence in the phone market when Google releases operating systems that don't even work on devices that came out in the current year.
"don't even work on other companies devices that they have no control over"
Fixed that for you. The Nexus (minus the G1) line of phones gets regular updates - my old Nexus One was always updated within a few weeks of a new version of android coming out. If you want updated OS software on your phone, be smart about which droid phone you get. Ain't goog's fault Samsung won't allow updates to Phone #4123.
I'm just a user of Google's Android OS. My three-year old Windows and Mac computers still get the latest OS versions, as do my iPhones. I don't care about the particular reasons why my phone with Google's Android OS doesn't get updated. I just know it doesn't. Those are Google's problems, not mine. My problem is that I own an Android phone that is not on the latest version.
> be smart about which droid phone you get
My solution to this problem is to get an iPhone. Even the phones Google makes don't have the kind of update longevity Apple's do. The Nexus One did not get ICS, much less Jellybean. The 3GS is getting iOS 6.
You didn't buy your OS from Google. You didn't buy your device from Google. Your phone doesn't have the latest OS because your device manufacturer isn't giving it to you.
Yeah, I don't really care. It is Google branded, was developed primarily by Google, was marketed as "Google Android" and/or "Android by Google" at various times, has Google apps, has a store run by Google where I get more apps, and has Google's name associated with it in every news article I find about it online. It's a Google device to me, Joe Average Consumer. Your technicalities don't mean jack to me.
Also, everything you said in this comment applies likewise when I get a laptop with Windows installed by an OEM. Are you prepared to argue that a Windows computer is in no part a Microsoft product and that Microsoft would not be responsible if the OS failed to update on my laptop?
And Joe Average Consumer doesn't care what OS version his phone is running, as long as he can play Angry Birds and get email and Facebook. I wish that wasn't true, because then carriers and manufacturers who fail to provide updates would be punished by the market, but it is.
Your Windows OEM analogy does not hold since the OEM does not develop nor integrate their own version of Windows. More importantly, Microsoft has full control over update channel. Not so with Android.
> Would you like to address that or are you going to concede it?
It is not a sword duel you know? Between this and throwing "I don't care's" around you really come off argumentative
> Your Windows OEM analogy does not hold since the OEM does not develop nor integrate their own version of Windows.
For the most part, the extent of this with Android is providing drivers and firmware for an individual phone's hardware, plus a few crapware apps to run on the desktop. This happens all the time in the Windows ecosystem too. I think the analogy is holding up just fine.
I am argumentative, so it is reasonable for me to come off this way, although you're right that I should chill a little. I dislike the double standards that people have with respect to Google and other companies on this subject.
But, of course, you're wrong since there is no double-standard. Microsoft is no more responsible than Google is with regards to their software installed on hardware you buy from a manufacturer.
I would be very surprised if the average Joe feels this way. To double check my theories, I just asked three engineers where I work and they all seem to believe that Microsoft has an obligation to support new, high-end laptops in a near-term OS bump.
Microsoft has no such obligation; but you might certainly want that. But we all want stuff. Do a bunch of engineers want Microsoft to release an OS that supports their new laptops -- of course. So what.
The thing is, this happens all the time. My Dell laptop came with Vista and it doesn't "support" Windows 7. You can't get 7 drivers directly from them. It runs 7 just fine (in fact better) but you're on your own to get it working.
You and I are using different meanings of this word. Presumably you are referring to a legal obligation, or a moral one. I don't recognize the existence of morality and I suspect that, unless they have a "Windows 8 Ready" tag on the machine, no legal obligation would exist either.
The "obligation" I am speaking of is an expectation formed in the minds of average consumers to the point where they consider it a fault on the part of the software manufacturer when the expectation is not met.
> Dell ...
How old was the machine? There's a big difference in most consumers' expectations between failing to support N-year old devices and devices that are currently selling.
> The "obligation" I am speaking of is an expectation...
Obligation is a legal or moral term -- you can't use that term otherwise. An expectation is not an obligation. If you expect free cookies from me because I've been giving you free cookies every day for the past week, that's fine. But I'm not obligated to give you free cookies today. If Bob gives you free cookies and I'm now sitting in Bob's desk, you might expect free cookies but I'm not obligated to give them to you.
Microsoft provides updates out of the goodness of their heart. You might expect them to continue giving updates forever. They're not obligated to do that. And because they give updates, Google isn't obligated to do it too.
If you'd like your expectations to be met, find Bob and he might give you some cookies.
I guess we have reached an impasse. We'll see how well this approach works out for Google in the long run. I'm inclined to suspect it is hurting them as it would probably hurt Microsoft if they started breaking backwards compatibility with every OS release. But reality will have to be the arbiter of whether this theory is correct.
Also, IMO, the term social obligation is pretty well understood. It's an expectation of your behavior by others.
I loved this thread. I am beginning to hate Google. I don't care about words and explanations: I remember updating my iPhone "1" a little while after the Apple event, While just updating my Samsung Galaxi SII to ICS a few weeks ago with shitty Movistar stuff bundled and where they even removed the "native" browser and you must go to the search option tocopen it. Sure I can now install Chrome but I discovered that Opera works better than Firefox and Chrome! (hilarious? I can't submit to HN with these last two). And everyday I trigger vlingo shit because I pressed two times the home button and can't be disabled! (vlingo posted a solution that don't work on their websites).
I don't want a Ferrari that is not leaving its potential.
> We'll see how well this approach works out for Google in the long run.
You make it seem like Google want this but I seriously doubt that they do. They simply don't have any say in the matter. They gave the carriers and the manufacturers everything they wanted to get into the market and now they can't close the barn door after the horses have run out. So instead they have their Nexus devices.
> social obligation is pretty well understood
Social obligation is also a moral term and it means more than just doing what people expect you to do because they are spoiled.
Do you believe that Google doesn't want all Android users to have the latest and greatest? The more people happy with Android, the more people using Android, the more people seeing Google provided ads, which was the whole point of starting Android in the first place.
You have absolutely no business relationship with Google with regards to your device and yet you think it's their problem? Branding tells you what software it's running -- that's all -- it doesn't imply anything more.
Yes, I am prepared to argue that you have no direct business relationship with Microsoft when you purchase a PC. In fact, if you read your license agreement you will see that -- the first line in fact reads: "These license terms are an agreement between you and the computer manufacturer that distributes the software with the computer". According to the license the manufacturer accepts all responsibility for defects in Windows (including updates) for the warranty period.
If you choose to install a version of Windows purchased directly from Microsoft, that's under completely different terms.
This is not the question I asked. I asked you if you thought it would be wrong to consider Microsoft responsible for Windows failing to update on a recently acquired laptop.
I am slightly curious as to your personal opinion, but in the main it simply doesn't matter what an individual hacker knowledgable about the business aspects of the ecosystem thinks. I'd be willing to stake up to a hundred dollars that if you find five random Windows users on the street and ask them "If Windows stopped updating on your machine, would you consider Microsoft responsible for that?" five of them would say yes (assuming they know that Windows updates at all :P). Whether you technically have a business relationship with Microsoft is totally uninteresting to most consumers, as is also true in this case with Google. What matters is the expectations created by marketing, branding, and UI. That's really all I have to say about this subject.
Yes, I did edit it in, but I thought I had done it so quickly that you would not have seen the original comment. My apologies.
> be wrong to consider Microsoft responsible for Windows failing to update on a recently acquired laptop.
Is it wrong that Microsoft doesn't provide free versions of Windows 8 to everyone who bought a Windows 7 PC? Because that's what you're comparing it to. Obviously nobody on the street would think that's reasonable.
> If Windows stopped updating on your machine, would you consider Microsoft responsible for that?
Microsoft has no moral obligation to provide updates and updates are really a relatively new invention. They do, in fact, stop providing updates to their software all the time.
> What matters is the expectations created by marketing, branding, and UI.
So what really matters is a bunch of subjective crap? Honestly? No where does Google say they'll update your device. Not in the marketing, not the branding, not even really in the UI.
> Would it be wrong if Windows 8 would not run on a computer I bought this year.
So now you think Microsoft is morally obligated to design their software so that it runs on older hardware? Your expectations are clearly pretty extreme.
The interesting point here is that Google's software does work on the hardware we're talking about. So is Google or Microsoft obligated to give you software for free? Obviously they are not. But even more interesting, Google's software is already free and available! So the question then becomes are the manufacturers obligated to modify it to run on your hardware and give it to you? Well are they? If they are, take it up with them. I'm not sure what Google has to do with it.
They are the expectations of typical users of Windows and Android software. I am not sure what you mean by extreme but whatever it is, it's not what I typically think of when I hear the word.
> Would it be wrong if Windows 8 would not install on a computer I bought this year?
Why would it be? I'd like to know the thinking behind this. Are all software makers similarly constrained? Is Valve obligated to make games that run on computers I bought this year? In fact, are they obligated to make games that run on my crappy netbook too?
Is Microsoft obligated to give you Windows 8 for free? Install it for you? Provide all the drivers? Exactly how much free shit do you want?
Your phone doesn't have the latest OS because your device manufacturer isn't giving it to you.
"You didn't buy it from Google, so it's your own fault" is probably not a great marketing tactic for the platform.
Android is, in several ways, dependent on the goodwill and word-of-mouth promotion of people who care about things like getting their device's OS upgraded within a couple years of when the new OS is released. Losing that goodwill (which is surprisingly difficult when we consider all the different ways Google's basically said "fuck you" to the people who promoted Android for them) would probably be a major blow for the platform.
Uhh.. I have a Nexus One, and that was not my experience at all. It took a fucking long time to get updates. But maybe that's because I had one of the later models of Nexus One, which supported AT&T 3G, and all the updates only went out on time to the people who had the original model.
You know, the point of a computer is to do work or play games with it. You do not need the absolute latest release of whatever to do useful work or play games.
Hihi, you are funny. You view of the companies clearly colors your view. It’s not really clear that either company plans or does not plan the obsolescence of their devices.
The end result, however, is that iOS devices become obsolete much more slowly than Android devices. What do I care about the reading of tea leaves as to whether some company plans something or not?
Apple owns the entire ecosystem, they can't claim anything they do to it is unplanned. Google merely owns the OS and a few devices, they can't control what samsung and htc and everyone else decides to do or not do.
“Planned obsolescence” implies that a device is made obsolete to force people to buy newer devices as opposed to other reasons. Just because a device becomes obsolete doesn’t mean it’s “planned obsolescence”, even with total control over the whole ecosystem. That’s at least how “planned obsolescence” is commonly used and defined. “Planned obsolescence” as a term implies a reason (forcing people to buy newer devices), so not all forms of planned obsolescence (not as a term, notice the lack of quotation marks) are really “planned obsolescence” (as the term implying the reason).
Since we can’t read minds it’s definitely akin to reading tea leaves when you want to find out whether “planned obsolescence” plays any role for Apple.
So do you imply that the iOS6 features missing on the iPhone 3GS are missing for hardware reasons - or that intentionally leaving out features is not planned obsolescence? Whatever it is, I don't think Apple is maximizing hardware lifetime here.
(I'm not complaining about the average lifetime of my Apple devices here, the iPad 1 and iPhone 3G were abysmal but my laptop & Mac Mini made up for it. I actually think that's why they have to add stronger, artificial incentives.)
You can debate about this forever. It's like reading tea leaves.
The real world consequence, however, is this: if you want to be able to update your device for as long as possible you should get an iOS device. I'm talking consequences, not so much intentions.
I agree with the consequence and buy accordingly. I don't have anything to add to your first posting, where you've stated how things factually work out.
But I haven't seen anyone argue that Apple's feature cut-off is hardware-bound. This is not reading tea leaves by a far margin. It's a business decision (like many) that goes against the interests of users. No harm in keeping that in mind.
You're never going to have a tablet that is future proof if you don't want to upgrade every year... because there will always be newer, better ones coming out, and newer versions of Android.
Your complaint isn't that buying now would force you to use an outdated operating system, it's that you would use an outdated operating system for a little longer than you normally would.
What are you talking about? This is a 7" $199 tablet we're talking about. And besides, the talking head on stage mentioned JB is coming to the Xoom in the next month or two.
No, Google keeps its promises when it comes to supporting old devices - Jelly Bean will be released in mid-July for the Nexus S, a phone first shipped in Dec 2010. It also got the ICS upgrade months ago.
It's the other Android manufacturers - Samsung, HTC, etc - and the mobile carriers that approve each OTA update that often don't fulfill their promises.
Google promised like two I/Os ago that they were solving the fragmentation problem with some kind of new agreement with device makers, but after that we never heard another word about it.
Maybe it's not Google's fault, but that seems like it's skirting the issue: a year after ICS was announced, something like 7.5% of devices are using it, and now we're moving on to JB. We can sit around and blame Samsung and HTC all day, but Google is the steward company of Android and this fragmentation is a real problem that affects developers. If it's creating a shitty situation for developers, it's creating a shitty situation for users.
Future-proof is a reasonable goal for a desktop PC, television, digital camera, automobile, wristwatch, or other more mature technology. It's just too soon to expect future-proofing from tablets or phones.
As long as the tablet continues to do what it's supposed to do , it shouldn't really matter that there's a newer OS out there.
As compared to the Kindle fire, which was never any good at doing what it was supposed to do. It wasn't even present-proof.
How does the future-proofedness of Android tablets compare to the first iPad?
I think it's held up pretty well, it doesn't get apps or features that require the camera, but aside from that it still gets updates and can run stuff.
Andriod tablets can run new apps but not the operating system upgrades? I don't have any experience to know.
Generally API features of newer versions of Android are backported and made available through the compatibility library, so it's common to get features of newer OSs on older devices (a major exception to this is Google Chrome which is unavailable for pre-ICS devices).
There's no such thing, the iPad won't save you. Apple just deprecated the iPad1 at just over 2 years of lifespan. Even if they didn't the battery would die. We're in a 'disposable device' era now.
If you had gotten the galaxy 7 (the new one) you'd still be fine.
But none can predict what's future proof, mainly because it's what companies make their money off. They NEED you to buy a new tablet, phone, etc, every year.
They'd make car breaks and need complete replacement every year if they could as well.
So, while it can happen that a product is "future proof" for a couple of years instead of one, it's rare.
Heck, even clothes are made to break quickly.
Of course, that's not very ecological, and certainly not cheap for the customer ;-)
I understand your point, but I am not sure I agree. The initial demise of the American automobile manufacturers was partly due to the unreliability of their products.
Regarding tablets, I would think that locking people into a particular app ecosystem would be a higher priority than achieving a high tablet turnover rate. Seems like the money is in the apps, not the hardware.
It depends, most of the hardware is not manufactured by Google (even thus it's sold in Google's name)
So for example, Samsung, etc, (but mostly Samsung here) see a benefit in having the hardware expire as fast as possible (while keeping the balance of 'not having the customer complain about reliability or performance' and 'not letting the competition get ahead, or too much ahead')
I imagine a future-proof tablet would be modular and easy for consumers to modify, like PCs. Modularity for PCs is possible in-part because of standard form factors. But this is something that hasnt been fully embraced by mobile device manufacturers (to my knowledge).
I would love to have a tablet where I could easily add memory, processor, screen, etc. So instead of buying a new one every year, I can just upgrade and extend the hardware myself and still run the latest software.
The problem is that having user-serviceable parts significantly adds to the bulk of a device, and it's pretty clear that's not an appealing tradeoff to most users and manufacturers.
E.g.: just to have a removable battery, you have to put a protective case on the battery as well as an internal "case" to receive the battery inside the device (generally, another layer of plastic. Even on laptops that is becoming prohibitively bulks; on tablets, it's a non-starter (see the recent MacBook Pro redesign). You just can't pack the parts together tight enough and still have them be user-replaceable.
I love the idea of a modular mobile device as well, but it's pretty clear things are headed in the other direction: thinner, sleeker, longer-battery-life products sell better than bulky but more customizable products.
I hope your eyes are much better than mine; good luck reading A4 documents on 7". :-(
I got an iPad 3, it is like reading eInk with fast page changes, so I can browse documentation and not only read literature (cough, out of sunlight of course).
(I'm a bit color blind, so I don't really care that much about the good graphics and color reproduction :-) )
I'd pay good money for a 2-3" larger iPad 3.
Edit: If it wasn't clear -- if you want to read real documents that can't be reflowed, it might have 0 value for the money for you (unless your eyes are < 35 years old.)
