"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.
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.