Related
Hello,
I’m going to step across the NDAs and explain the issues behind the Android Froyo update to Samsung Galaxy S phones in the United States. I think most of you have come to this realization yourself now: the withholding of the Froyo update is a largely political one, not a technological one: Froyo runs quite well on Galaxy S phones, as those of you that have run leaked updates may have noticed.
To explain the political situation, first, a primer on how phone firmware upgrades work for carriers. When a carrier decides to sell a phone, a contract is usually written between the phone manufacturer and the carrier. In this contract, the cost of updates (to the carrier) is usually outlined. Updates are usually broken into several types: critical updates, maintenance updates, and feature updates. Critical updates are those that resolve a critical bug in the phone, such as the phone overheating. Maintenance updates involve routine updates to resolve bugs and other issues reported by the carrier. Finally, feature updates add some new feature in software that wasn’t present before. Critical updates are usually free, maintenance updates have some maintenance fee associated with them, and feature updates are usually costly.
In the past, most phone updates would mainly consist of critical and maintenance updates. Carriers almost never want to incur the cost of a feature update because it is of little benefit to them, adds little to the device, and involves a lot of testing on the carrier end. Android has changed the playing field, however – since the Android Open Source Project is constantly being updated, and that information being made widely available to the public, there is pressure for the phone to be constantly updated with the latest version of Android. With most manufacturers, such as HTC, Motorola, etc. This is fine and considered a maintenance upgrade. Samsung, however, considers it a feature update, and requires carriers to pay a per device update fee for each incremental Android update.
Now, here’s where the politics come in: most U.S. carriers aren’t very happy with Samsung’s decision to charge for Android updates as feature updates, especially since they are essentially charging for the Android Open Source Project’s efforts, and the effort on Samsung’s end is rather minimal. As a result of perhaps, corporate collusion, all U.S. carriers have decided to refuse to pay for the Android 2.2 update, in hopes that the devaluation of the Galaxy S line will cause Samsung to drop their fees and give the update to the carriers. The situation has panned out differently in other parts of the world, but this is the situation in the United States.
Some of you might have noticed Verion’s Fascinate updated, but without 2.2 : This is a result of a maintenance agreement Samsung must honor combined with Verizon’s unwillingness to pay the update fees.
In short, Android 2.2 is on hold for Galaxy S phones until the U.S. carriers and Samsung reach a consensus.
Some might wonder why I didn’t deliver this over a more legitimate news channel – the short answer: I don’t want to lose my job. I do, however, appreciate transparency, which is why I'm here.
Interesting.. thank you for that
Sent from my GT540 using XDA App
this has been an issue since the Samsung Omnia (SGH-i900) came out. Promises of updates to no avail. No updates, just do it yourself!
Finally something that makes sense to me. I do have 2.2 on my phone thanks to the folks here on XDA.
I work for Sprint at a service and repair store. We had a memo that the Epic was suppose to get Froyo on Dec 26th, but that they pulled it because it bricked half their test phones and needed more work. I do know that the Intercept had an official update go out for Froyo that bricked roughly 10% of customer's phones and we were instructed to put them back on 2.1, I do know someone who has a legitimate carrier copy of Froyo on their Intercept, its not a Galaxy phone but its still Samsung. What you're saying Samsung is doing(which sounds right/true) is pretty petty. HTC released an update to Froyo for the Evo about 2 weeks after the phone launched. That's what manufacturers should do IMO.
In regards to the Epic, i'd like to remind people that originally, it was marketed as having 2.2. Then, closer to release, they changed it to 2.1 "with 2.2 coming soon after." Well, "soon after" has come and gone.
I bought the Epic partly because it suited me better than the Evo, but also because of 2.2. I knew that i would have a current version running. Froyo was part of the basis of my bargain. At this point I'm fed up with samsung. We've been getting teased with 2.2 almost every month for literally 5 months now, and at least for 1-2 months prior to the phone being released (which makes it upwards of 6 months). It is ridiculous.
People who have this phone should just return it when something new comes out. Samsung has breached their promise. Im sure there will be people here who will comment about the fact that you can always root your phone or that they are happy with eclair; that's fine. I bought this phone with the assumption it would perform on par with 2.2, and not have any annoying lags and bugs.
If everyone complains and ditches boycotts samsung phones, then maybe they will change their ways. From everything i have ever read, i never see anyone mention the fact that samsung marketed this device as having 2.2 and subsequently, promising it within a short period of time.
Just my .2 cents
This is one major reason that I am contemplating trading my Epic out for an Evo, I am tired of Sammy's bull****.
I am realizing that even though it is a good phone, it will soon be "out of date" with the lack of support from every one.
All this is bull****. Us cell carriers suck.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk
samsung
personally after owning a moment i will never own a samsung phone again. thank got i got an evo shift
Interesting. Kinda contradicts with Samsung's marketing agenda during launch of the Galaxy S line in the States. During the launch event in NYC it was clearly stated by Samsung that all variants of Galaxy S line will receive Froyo firmware update, no where it was mentioned that if you are on a US carrier the device upgrade will be subject to terms and conditions set between the manufacturer and the carriers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf3uGTAeQy4
FF to 4:45
I think it's pretty god damn egregious that they'd charge large sums of money for code thats open source and freely available. I'd also think it has to be against some sort of law or license.
Hot_Hands said:
I think it's pretty god damn egregious that they'd charge large sums of money for code thats open source and freely available. I'd also think it has to be against some sort of law or license.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Disclaimer: I am not defending Samsung. Upgrading an embedded platform (regardless is the software is open source or not) is an extensive process that takes the time of engineers and testers...so it does cost Samsung money. I think the argument that just because Android is open source, Samsung has no reason to charge carriers for updates is off-base. This type of R&D cost money....maybe not a whole bunch, but some investment dollars are still allocated.
With that said, if Samsung led the public to believe that US Galaxy S devices would be upgraded to Android 2.2, then they need to absolutely hold up their end of the bargain. A lot of these corporate types lack long-term thinking. Samsung could begin to build a good fanbase if they pickup the slack in the customer support department by providing timely upgrades, fixes, and other types of support. This fanbase will continue to buy their products and recommend others to do so. This is why Apple consistently ranks highest customer satisfaction, they provide software support for their products for at least a year, mostly two.
At this point, their public image (in my eyes) has taken a dive. I own the Captivate, a Samsung monitor, and digital camera. But these will be my last three Samsung products forever and I will not recommend any others Samsung products.
Great post. Makes me dislike Samsung even more now!
Thanks for bringing this side of the story to light, and risking your job to do so. If this story holds any bearing, Samsung is an entirely terrible company who hold zero care for their customers. They are only concerned with profits and pushing out new products instead of making their current customers happy and possibly turning them into repeat customers. Pitiful.
Great OP, which leads to three comments / thoughts.
First, if a carrier, such as T-Mobile USA decided to carry the rumored Vibrant 4G, this would suggest that either 1) they have renegotiated their contract with Samsung or 2) that they don't care about their customer base - given what their existing Vibrant customers have experienced. We will know, in due course, what path T-Mobile USA has chosen to walk.
Second, it sounds like the iPhone has an advantage over Android based products because Apple is in a position to update the operating system without involving the carrier. If this is the case, then financially, one would expect carriers to start pushing the iPhone to their customers. I don't see this happening yet as many carriers have really built up their Android lines. But it will be interesting to see what happens now that other carrier(s) start to carry the iPhone.
Third, it seems like this is an area where Google really needs to step in and set expectations - with carriers, manufacturers, and consumers. Right now, we are witnessing a growing dissatisfaction with Samsung. However a recent report showed that the best manufacturer for pushing updates - HTC - only had a 50% track record. Consumers, who are locked into a 2 year contract, will grow frustrated if their only means of getting the latest operating system (including some "non-critical" bug fixes) is to purchase another phone at full price. This will affect how Android and Google are perceived.
Seriously, why do we need to keep telling people this:
Never
Ever
Ever
Buy a phone for promised future updates.
You buy it for what it can do now, if it can't do that, then you have zero right to complain when it doesn't.
Yet in all seriousness, what does it matter to anyone on this forum? We all have the capabilities to upgrade our devices to the latest roms. Yes, pushed out updates give us updated drivers, packages and all around system fixes, but seriously guys, even with a N1 I don't even wait for OTAs.
OP, can you maybe link to some official documentation on this? Not that I doubt you for a second, but putting out some dox would light a serious fire under Samsung's ass...
So does this have anything to do with the fact that AT&T was/is(?) dumping the Captivate on the marketplace?
Last July, it was giving away Captivates. I have heard rumors that some folks are STILL able to procure free Captivates.
Is this the beginning of a falling out between Samsung and AT&T?
Awesome, thanks for the news. This article explains a lot but on a different note, I'm not sure about "effort on Samsung’s end is rather minimal" is 100% accurate. Have you seen how crazy TouchWiz is integrated into stock Android OS, it is pretty ridiculous when comparing to to Motorola's Moto Blur...
No update - No problem
No worries. The lack of update to Froyo forced my hand. I found the wonderful world of XDA and also taught myself how to choose custom ROMs, tweak features, and remove Sprint bloatware that I never wanted anyway.
So this little spat of theirs has actually provided great benefit to me. I've learned how to customize my phone and I've learned that Samsung is a ****ing nitwit of a company. The Galaxy S is my first and last Samsung phone. I'm very happy with it, currently, with my custom ROM. However, when the time for an upgrade comes, so long Sammy.
I hope your extra fees for open source software covers your future losses from me and others jumping ship.
Oh wait, no I don't.
please try not to shoot the messenger here. Thought this may be of interest to some here.
Class Action
Also a Plausible explanation for the Delay...
Sighcosis said:
please try not to shoot the messenger here. Thought this may be of interest to some here.
Class Action
Also a Plausible explanation for the Delay...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The second article, if true, is what pisses me off.. Good job Samsung, you may be deceptively inflating the value of your Vibrant 4G, but, at the cost of the PR of thousands of customers who've already put value into your company.. brilliant!
Let's watch all those Fascinate owners hop over to the iPhone 4 on Febuary 10th because we STILL won't have OTA Froyo by then!!..
The lawsuit will fail. We are not guaranteed any updates, read the contract you signed when you got your phone.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA App
not sure about if there is a case there or not.
But its is not all about updates.
I understand that to be a small part of it.
Apparently more to do with the GPS not working and basically not following in the Android Open Source Project scheme. I was reading up on that and from what I can understand of it their source should be available to Devs *hence the Open Source*.
Personally it costs me nothing and if it helps in getting the message out that as customers we are unhappy.. I am all in..
Twitter something to @SamsungMobileUS with #NeverAgain tag. That is another "movement" started by DEVs here at XDA.
this was mine
@SamsungMobileUS I have been a user of your fine video and audio devices for years. #NeverAgain will I purchase a Samsung device.
I am but one voice and can not be heard in the masses. But if I join the masses we can become a Shout or a Deafening Roar
Well let me go read the AOSP license..
and that aside.. who knows what license agreement Google and Samsung made? It is not necessarily the one on the code.
Here's the corporate license: http://source.android.com/source/cla-corporate.html
Well.. as far as I can tell (I'm no lawyer..) Samsung is not doing anything illegal:
http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html
The are not required to redistribute their source at all for user space applications.. they are only required to retain the license and make sure they note where they have made changes. Code, however, may be distributed in source OR object format.
As far as the kernel (which is what we really need) they are only required to redistribute the source of any linux kernel they have in turn modified and then DISTRIBUTED. Key word distributed, and let me assure you, this has been done. The source for the current kernel on our device can be obtained from Samsung's open source website (albeit at obnoxiously throttled DL speeds.. ~70kb/s). I have it . Once they push 2.2 they will [have to] make the source available. I'm sure they will.
skitzo_inc said:
The lawsuit will fail. We are not guaranteed any updates, read the contract you signed when you got your phone.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I also don't the lawsuit will succeed, but from what I gather its not about the update itself, its about them all saying we would get it and never getting it. The whole "false advertising" thing. Think about what kind of legal staff a multinational conglomerate like Samsung could put together. I love the fact that he is speaking out and getting a decent amount of attention, but in the long run will it do anything? Unfortunately I doubt it. I do not hate Samsung or US Cellular for that matter, in fact I love my Mez way better than my crapberry curve
droidzach said:
I also don't the lawsuit will succeed, but from what I gather its not about the update itself, its about them all saying we would get it and never getting it. The whole "false advertising" thing. Think about what kind of legal staff a multinational conglomerate like Samsung could put together. I love the fact that he is speaking out and getting a decent amount of attention, but in the long run will it do anything? Unfortunately I doubt it. I do not hate Samsung or US Cellular for that matter, in fact I love my Mez way better than my crapberry curve
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In the business word the only promise is a contract. And even those can be broken..
I know this, if I worked at Verizon I would hold off the 2.2 update until after the Iphone4 is launched to beef up the sales of the new product. Then release 2.2 after sales have leveled out.
I just think it is kind of weird right after at&t releases their two new android phones and new tethering plan, that our phone then the aria who have both waited for months get an update. Kinda seems like at&t was holding out on the updates. Anyone else agree this seems a little weird?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App
+1
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
OK, this is just my opinion, but I believe that all the people that have been castrating Samsung about the updates are generally wrong, and that ATT was where things were being held up.
So, it's easy to castrate ATT for that but, really, it's easy for people that don't understand software/product support to pass judgement. Most people assume that ATT delayed things for commercial reasons so they could bloat/cripple the software. That may very well be true, but is it the only reason?
Assuming there are a couple million captivates out there, maybe ATT wanted to make sure they were able and ready to support the update of a couple million phones by generally retarded consumers that were going to create a huge demand spike for support when the upgrade was released?
Being in the software business, I know that software rollouts are not simply a matter of the software being ready. Having an infrastructure/ecosystem in place to support the software once it's rolled out is often as challenging as developing the software, and often just because the software is ready doesn't mean the business is ready to roll it out and support it. It may be as elementary as making sure you have enough capacity in your call centers to take the additional end-user support call volume generated by the update.
So, it's logical for me to believe that ATT set up an infrastructure and a plan that was implemented to support rollout of updates. It's also logical to assume that plan was intended so that the day it "went live" it enabled them to support multiple phone updates. The timing could certainly encompass dependencies/considerations on other elements of their business/infrastructure, including seemingly unrelated (to us) elements like support for tethering, etc.
I'm not necessarily defending all of these companies practices, and I really do think their communication could be better, but let's face it. Sometimes they are caught between a rock and a hard place. If they roll out something before they are ready they get berated because they released prematurely (see IPhones and network capacity and one reason so many people ***** about ATT). Or some updates fail and some phones get bricked and bloggers jump on them and try to ruin their reputation (see the recent WP7 first update). Or they try to communicate and people want specific dates and complain if they don't get them (see recent SamsungJohn/XDA debacle). If a date slips because of some unforeseen reason, people hold their feet to the fire over it.
So, is it coincidence that the Captivate and Aria updated at the same time, along with some other business elements like tethering? Probably not. Does it imply something insidious? Maybe, but I tend to believe it was along the lines of their project/implementation timelines based on the things they needed to put into place to support their customers and manage their business plans.
People, in general, VASTLY underestimate the amount of work that is required to set up an ecosystem to support end-users and roll out and release software/products.
Can Samsung and ATT do a better job of communicating? Absolutely, especially as it relates to the XDA audience. But consider this: maybe, from their business perspective, the number of people that ***** on the Internet are a miniscule (albeit very visible to us) percentage of their business/customers and although they are willing to spend some time to cater to that element, maybe their willingness only extends out a little bit because they think it only affects their business a little bit.
Just my $.02.
Bob
I'm trying to get Samsung to release the source for their ar6000.ko ethernet kernel module as well as the source they used for wpa_supplicant (which contains extensions to wpa_supplicant.) To that end, I've sent them a few messages making those requests. Here was their reply (edited)
1. about 'ar6000.ko'
: source code of atheros chip set is not GPL.
We get BSD/GPL dual license from Atheros company.
We choose BSD license, so we do not have any obligation to publish source codeof it.
2. wpa_supplicant
Wpa_supplicant is also BSD/GPL dual license. (and we also choose BSD license)
________________________________________________________________
WPA Supplicant
==============
Copyright (c) 2003-2008, Jouni Malinen and contributors
All Rights Reserved.
This program is dual-licensed under both the GPL version 2 and BSD
license. Either license may be used at your option.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sadly, they seem to have failed to meet the conditions of the BSD licensing as well. I've sent them another message stating this:
Concerning the atheros AR6000 driver and the wpa_supplicant binary. In denying the making available source for both the ar6000 module and the wpa_supplicant binary, you state that you get both of these with dual GPL/BSD licensing and choose the BSD license. That is fine, however you failed to meet the terms of the BSD license. In particular, for both items, the BSD license states: " Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution." You have failed to state your licensing terms and this disclaimer in reference to the above stated items in either the printed documentation or the legal licensing screen embedded within the settings app on the device. As a matter of fact, you've failed to provide any licensing notice for GPL or BSD licensing for either item.
Regardless, I'm asking for these items in order to attempt to FIX BUGS that have been left in the device. It's been well documented in the forums for users of these devices that the wifi chipset drivers are causing crashes, freezes, "sleep of death" situations, etc. Samsung's support has been EXTREMELY unresponsive in attempting to resolve these issue, and I'd be willing to bet that reports of these issue aren't even getting through to your development teams.
Therefore, I once again ask that you release the source for the ar6000 module and wpa_supplicant binary that you have NOT followed the licensing terms of (regardless of which license you've chosen.) Oh, and there's no licensing string embedded in the ar6000.ko module either. modinfo ar6000.ko reveals nothing (for the ar6000.ko module on the GT-P6210 with KL1 firmware.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Honestly, I don't expect for Samsung to be responsive and/or helpful. I think the best that anyone can expect is that they release an updated firmware that includes the proper licensing information.
Gary
Check and mate Sir. I despise these OEMs. You GO gary. Whatever happened to opensource? What are they so afraid of?
Anything we can do to help, let us know. Even if it means just spamming their inbox.
It's not like I buy the tablet because it has such an epic driver....
I buy it for the hardware...
When your entire OS is practically open source... not open sourcing the drivers for the wireless chip seems like shooting yourself in the foot just because you can.
Thanks garyd9 for fighting the good fight.
When companies do stuff like this for critical things, it _really_ makes me want to spend my money elsewhere.
In regards to the SOD issue, I've noticed that quite a few honeycomb tablets have this issue or something similar to it. I've only personally seen it with Samsung branded ones (10.1 and 7.0+), but have heard similar issues with asus and and acer.
Perhaps its a honeycomb issue?
Gary
give em hell!
If you'd like to help, please click the link near the top of the OP to submit the article to the XDA portal. Perhaps if this issue is shown on the front page, and enough people notice, Samsung could be convinced to "choose" GPL over BSD.
Thank you
Gary
Did you get any useful /proc/last_kmsg dumps of SoDs? Enabling wifi may only be making a difference because of the wakeups.
That said - I am completely shocked that Broadcom's drivers are open source and the ar6000 driver isn't. I've lost a lot of respect for Atheros AND for Samsung over this. I can understand if it's BSD - but seriously, what trade secrets could Samsung have in a freaking Atheros driver, and for something like this, what possible business reason could they have for witholding source for that ONE module? It's freaking stupid.
I was hoping that they'd start becoming more developer-friendly as a result of hiring Cyanogen, but they're being asshats at this point. They donated a device to Codeworkx (or someone else on Teamhacksung) to get CM7 ported, but have not given him a shred of assistance with the porting effort. Basically, trying to get "Supported by CyanogenMod" credits without ANY significant effort.
As much as I hate Sony - SE seems to be doing the best of any manufacturer in terms of supporting people doing platform-level development.
Edits:
You know, this is proving to be a clear and recurring pattern. I have never seen XDA get anything useful out of SamsungJohn for example, all he does is come over, tease us with something, and never follow up.
Over in the Captivate forums - he came in and posted that source code was out, then left without any followup - by the time he made this announcement, people had already found the source and were working with it - http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=997098
He then came and teased us with the Samsung Developer Program - guess what, it provides NOTHING for developers doing platform work - http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1392847 - John also didn't come and respond to any of the feedback
Prior to that there was the Samsung Developers Conference tease - http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1291758 - nothing useful came out of this for anyone doing platform work. In fact, John just dropped off the face of the earth, I'm assuming that not a single person from XDA actually was brought by Samsung to the event, otherwise there would've been a followup/debrief post. Anyway, the "big announcement" was just the Galaxy Nexus release announcement. Big deal - that's a dev phone because Google forces it to be one, it's more of a Google product than a Samsung one.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=954896 (and many similar posts) - He just crossposted to a ton of forums saying something awesome was coming. Something awesome never came. The linked thread from many of his posts doesn't even exist. Actually, most of his 67 posts are just crossposting this tease - NOTHING ever came out of it.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/08/samsung-shows-affection-to-cyanogenmod-gives-its-devs-a-free-ga/ - As a PR stunt, Samsung threw a Galaxy S II over the wall to one of the CM developers. Without a doubt, Dan Hillenbrand (codeworkx) and Atin Malvaya (atinm) have not received any support from Samsung since Sammy threw a device over to them. The GSII is likely to be codeworkx's last Samsung device, he has become so frustrated with Samsung (Check his posts in the CM9 thread for I9100). Compare this to Sony Ericsson's effort here - http://blogs.sonyericsson.com/wp/2011/09/28/sony-ericsson-supports-independent-developers/ - They have given FreeXperia MASSIVE amounts of support, and it shows - http://www.cyanogenmod.com/blog/sony-ericsson-xperia-support
imnuts07 asked for some help regarding Droid Charge kernel source issues - https://twitter.com/#!/SamsungJohn/status/152835654303236097 - All he responded with was "how can we help" - no further response, imnuts07 didn't get anywhere until jt1134 gave him some pointers. (It turned out to be more proprietary module vermagic bull****...)
After all this, it's clear that with regards to platform developers, Samsung's intent is to do the bare minimum to meet their legal obligations with the GPL and no more. Even source code which they COULD release and have no valid reason for withholding is withheld if they are able to (such as the ar6000 module source code). I thought that the Galaxy S II was a step forward towards devices with 100% open source kernels, however it is clear that the GSII was just a fluke. I'm getting sick and tired of dealing with module vermagic headaches. I've spent at this point a few hundred hours of my spare time working on improvements to various products of theirs(maintaining kernels for three different products - Samsung Infuse, AT&T Galaxy S II, and Galaxy Player 5.0), and their consistent message back has been "go away, screw you, stop bothering us".
There may be a small bit of hope - I've been contacted by someone at samsung (perhaps due to your rant combined with my constant pestering on their open source website.) It isn't much, but the first line of collaborating is communication. They seem more interested in fixing the bugs than sharing code, but I'll take what I can get.
Oh, and the last_ksmg memory was corrupted when the one person who had adb, my kernel and root installed was able to check it. (As you know, the file won't be generated if header area for the ram console can't be found or is in bad shape.)
We'll see what happens, but I'm not going to hold my breath with the lunar new year coming up.
Take care
Gary
so how many people do we need to sue??
chrisrotolo said:
so how many people do we need to sue??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No lawsuits required. Although... that might explain the poor customer support from Samsung. Perhaps they've been afraid that Apple will sue them for patent infringement if they help a customer?
Not that I've ever had any GOOD support from Apple... mostly just clueless kids taking guesses. Even their so-called "geniuses" are mostly clueless.
In typing that, I realized that I'm probably one of the hardest people in the world to provide technical support to. When I have a question, it's only after I've exhausted the combined knowledge of myself and whatever google can provide... meaning the only good response from phone support would be "Would you like to cross-ship an exchange or wait for the repair?"
can we spook them with a (legal)letter they are in violation of the GPL/BSD agreement, and If it isnt provided in X amount of time, we will be forced to escalate?
I like to annoy people to (;
Speaking from personal experience ,when dealing (even on corporate high level) with Samsung there is nothing to gain but some weight due to stress.
They do care( up to a degree) about some customer relations and I've seen very nice, honest and helpful people there. But this is where it all ends.
The farther you go the worse it gets. Somehow they got this Apple attitude of profit and secrecy all over their structure. Apple calls themselves "innovators" to reason the secrecy, but Sammy are nowhere near. If I was to say they do act like copycat killers I risk getting called names- though they "adapt" almost everything, from design to business models. The Korean HQ has drawn quite strict regulations for the rest of the world.
We should remember that Samsung is a HUGE corporation. Android devices D&R is a tiny faction, ruled like in Middle Ages. They have the road map and they ever raise the stake every time. From my point of view, I sincerely understand those people for not jumping out with the source code. If you get paid 100k+, you don't help anyone but yourself. The decisions are not theirs. The people taking decisions don't give a rat's a55 about GNU or Linux, Minux or whatever. On top of that, there are some people that MIGHT have some influence in changing this policy ( the brown bearded, we call them) but those are the pride ridden SOBs.
You can read this from their mobile device history. They had to go into that, given the fact they build everything, from ships to home furniture. They got a share of the market because they were big and had some bright minds there. I know for a fact that, at the beginning, working @ cell phone dept was like sentenced to prison, only the undesirable but indispensable were sent there. Huh, those people left, some for Apple and some for others ( LG,Sony and Hyundai). Panasonic and Toshiba flops are some examples of how, in a degree, cultural burdens lead to a fail. HTC, a mobile phone company, depends on how much stir dev's can produce. On the other hand, Samsung can get a write-off for their mobile dept. without a blink. Bada is a perfect example. It was close to write off so they decided to make it open- see HP. They are too big to follow rules and beside being big, they hold the power few have- the power TO BEND rules, that is.
Getting any serious, development like help from Samsung is close to what ''Acts of God" are described in car insurance.
htc9420 said:
HTC, a mobile phone company, depends on how much stir dev's can produce.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are, obviously, an HTC fan or employee. Well, I have a samsung tablet, so I'm developing on a samsung tablet. At least the device was unlocked when I bought it and I didn't have to petition on facebook/twitter/etc just to be able to root it.
Unless you have something to contribute to solving a problem, please go elsewhere.
garyd9 said:
You are, obviously, an HTC fan or employee. Well, I have a samsung tablet, so I'm developing on a samsung tablet. At least the device was unlocked when I bought it and I didn't have to petition on facebook/twitter/etc just to be able to root it.
Unless you have something to contribute to solving a problem, please go elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wouldn't be so quick to judge him...
I just got the impression that the point of the post was to promote HTC while bashing everyone else.
Perhaps I spoke (typed) too soon. If so, I apologize.
No, the HTC thing was just one line, and what I perceived as some general comments on why some manufacturers (Panasonic, Toshiba) seem to have kind of flopped in the market.
There was definitive Samsung-bashing - but he's just joining with us in frustration.
Check PMs gary.
garyd9 said:
I'm trying to get Samsung to release the source for their ar6000.ko ethernet kernel module as well as the source they used for wpa_supplicant (which contains extensions to wpa_supplicant.) To that end, I've sent them a few messages making those requests. Here was their reply (edited)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey Gary,
I'm the developer for a CyanogenMod port for the Samsung phone (GT-I5500). Samsung have released their source for an older version of the AR6kSDK, which I have put on github here: https://github.com/psyke83/AR6kSDK.3.0. This source is quite old, and doesn't support combo scanning, but it's newer than the ath6kl source release contained in the 2.6.35 kernel.
Last night I scoured the internet trying to find some newer source, and came across a release by Sony for one of their e-book reader products. I have uploaded the source onto github which you can check here: https://github.com/psyke83/AR6kSDK.3.1
The above git's description links to the location of the original source tarball on Sony's server, but if you prefer, just clone the git and checkout the first commit, as it's the unmodified source.
I have made some changes already to get the module to initialize properly, but at present it's not even scanning properly. Perhaps it will work better for you without modifications, especially if your device is not AR6003_REV2 (which is the revision on my phone).
chrisrotolo said:
can we spook them with a (legal)letter they are in violation of the GPL/BSD agreement, and If it isnt provided in X amount of time, we will be forced to escalate?
I like to annoy people to (;
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
my friend mat has done this for me as he knows his stuff. it was a very powerful letter i must say haha. just waiting for a response
gary, thanks for all your efforts man! this is my first samsung android device, have they always been this bad in witholding source?
I know its so painfully obvious, but has anyone actually tried to contact samsung to get the development resources we need? Drivers and the such.
Beyond a doubt they left this phone to sink a long time ago, but the sidekick community is die-hard and all we want is the phone we thought we were getting. And we can have that phone, with no added work by Sasung - we have the devs and the will! We only need the way.
It would not be too difficult to draft a polite but demanding business letter/ petition and have all of us send it in. Shoot, if we got the story to the XDA mods we could probably get support site-wide for "dedicated sidekick/android enthusiasts want freedom for their phone - device never allowed upgrade from froyo". You guys might see this as stretching it, but a majority of people on XDA have samsung devices and would hate to see their own development halted by the company.
Strength in numbers. Not to mention, this kind of outcry would show samsung that the sidekick (keyboard devices) are still sought after and will be fought for. Somewhere in our petition should say the resources are just to hold us over until they release the next model which will NOT get treated like the red-headed stepchild the 4G did.
You'd be surprised what a small, vocal group can get done. If anyone has any background on this type of thing, say so. if nobody else steps up I will write it tuesday-Thursday and post it for any revisions, then we can each take a copy and send it. Even a simple facebook page or cheap website would add so much to this cause.
Sent from my SGH-T839 using xda app-developers app
Tsloble said:
I know its so painfully obvious, but has anyone actually tried to contact samsung to get the development resources we need? Drivers and the such.
Beyond a doubt they left this phone to sink a long time ago, but the sidekick community is die-hard and all we want is the phone we thought we were getting. And we can have that phone, with no added work by Sasung - we have the devs and the will! We only need the way.
It would not be too difficult to draft a polite but demanding business letter/ petition and have all of us send it in. Shoot, if we got the story to the XDA mods we could probably get support site-wide for "dedicated sidekick/android enthusiasts want freedom for their phone - device never allowed upgrade from froyo". You guys might see this as stretching it, but a majority of people on XDA have samsung devices and would hate to see their own development halted by the company.
Strength in numbers. Not to mention, this kind of outcry would show samsung that the sidekick (keyboard devices) are still sought after and will be fought for. Somewhere in our petition should say the resources are just to hold us over until they release the next model which will NOT get treated like the red-headed stepchild the 4G did.
You'd be surprised what a small, vocal group can get done. If anyone has any background on this type of thing, say so. if nobody else steps up I will write it tuesday-Thursday and post it for any revisions, then we can each take a copy and send it. Even a simple facebook page or cheap website would add so much to this cause.
Sent from my SGH-T839 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm for it. I think it's a great idea to sign a petition requesting to Samsung at least a test build of Gingerbread. :good:
Agreed broda's we have to do this.:thumbup:
Sent from my SGH-T839 using xda app-developers app
I like the idea! I'm not a dev so I wouldn't be able to write the letter, but I can help edit.
I will write up a draft tomorrow after my studies, leaving the appropriate "technical" spots easily editable so that we can get exactly what we need from Samsung per the Devs instruction.
Thank you guys for your support on this, I truly believe good can come of this!
Maybe we can direct them to our sidekick wishlist thread while we're at it ;D
Sent from my SGH-T839 using xda app-developers app
I would definitely help to, but English is not my main language. So i would try to help with the petition!
If samsung releases the driver source code I can make a stable CM6 and a BETA CM7 for this community. Butttttttt.....I don't see it happening.
Im up for it, count me in. Sure never doubt the power and determination of an online community especially an open source one like xda
I doubt anything would happen for sk4g. We did similar things in the sgs4g community. Samsung is more like honey badger...
Of course we should try, but i'm not sure that Samsung will help us after 2 years of doing nothing....
I'll post it up within the half hour - this week was busier than expected. And unless Samsung completely destroyed everything relating to our device, it should be as simple as a developers release right?
Sent from my SGH-T839 using xda app-developers app
Tsloble said:
I'll post it up within the half hour - this week was busier than expected. And unless Samsung completely destroyed everything relating to our device, it should be as simple as a developers release right?
Sent from my SGH-T839 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup
Here is draft one. Feel free to download the doc and make adjustments. Let's just be sure that the majority of our community agree on the final product and then we can take action. I will be sending out the story to Gizmodo/Engadget and stuff too... If this isn't an underdog tech story I don't know what is. You guys might think that's over the top, but it's just not right for a company to abandon their customer and it is never too late to make amends.
To Whom It May Concern:
This is a formal petition regarding the Samsung SGH-T839 device (T-Mobile Sidekick 4G).
We, the loyal consumers (and other), request through this petition that you kindly release development information & resources regarding the SGH-T839. This request is being made due to the absolute lack of support and development for this device since its launch April 20th, 2011. Please note that this device shipped with Android Operating System (Android from this point) Version 2.2 “Froyo” which was released May 20th, 2010. This is despite the fact that the SGH-T839 launch date was over four months after the release of Android Version 2.3 “Gingerbread” (released December 6th, 2010).
Not only was the device shipped with an outdated operating system, but a Kies / Over the Air Update to Gingerbread was never released. This came as a shock to all loyal consumers of the SGH-T839 as Samsung continued to update other devices to the new Android version and release new devices with Gingerbread already installed. In addition to the lack of support, the SGH-T839 had many bugs such as a keystroke logger within the system, the keyboard software missed keystrokes, and frequent Force-Close of applications.
These problems, amongst others, have been thoroughly logged by the XDA Developers Community (www.xda-developers.com). Amazingly, there is a large community of SGH-T839 users that are dedicated to the device and have managed to correct many of the software-related defects that were shipped with the device. This petition requests that Samsung release the following development items to the XDA Development Community, that the loyal consumer of their product may be able to enjoy everything that the SGH-T839 is capable of:
We urge you not to overlook this petition, as it is being circulated amongst several online communities that are dedicated to the Android Open Source Project for support. The influence of these communities over Samsung’s broader handheld-device customer base runs very deep; the XDA Developers Community alone has over 4.7 million registered users. We, the loyal consumer (and other), anticipate a prompt response to this matter. We also look forward to increased involvement from Samsung pertaining to the Android Open Source Project and hopefully a future device with similar form-factor of the SGH-T839.
Sincerely,
Edit 2: Was just thinking maybe "Release source to XDA community should be create developers release pack or something?
Tsloble said:
Here is draft one. Feel free to download the doc and make adjustments. Let's just be sure that the majority of our community agree on the final product and then we can take action. I will be sending out the story to Gizmodo/Engadget and stuff too... If this isn't an underdog tech story I don't know what is. You guys might think that's over the top, but it's just not right for a company to abandon their customer and it is never too late to make amends.
To Whom It May Concern:
This is a formal petition regarding the Samsung SGH-T839 device (T-Mobile Sidekick 4G).
We, the loyal consumers (and other), request through this petition that you kindly release development information & resources regarding the SGH-T839. This request is being made due to the absolute lack of support and development for this device since its launch April 20th, 2011. Please note that this device shipped with Android Operating System (Android from this point) Version 2.2 “Froyo” which was released May 20th, 2010. This is despite the fact that the SGH-T839 launch date was over four months after the release of Android Version 2.3 “Gingerbread” (released December 6th, 2010).
Not only was the device shipped with an outdated operating system, but a Kies / Over the Air Update to Gingerbread was never released. This came as a shock to all loyal consumers of the SGH-T839 as Samsung continued to update other devices to the new Android version and release new devices with Gingerbread already installed. In addition to the lack of support, the SGH-T839 had many bugs such as a keystroke logger within the system, the keyboard software missed keystrokes, and frequent Force-Close of applications.
These problems, amongst others, have been thoroughly logged by the XDA Developers Community (www.xda-developers.com). Amazingly, there is a large community of SGH-T839 users that are dedicated to the device and have managed to correct many of the software-related defects that were shipped with the device. This petition requests that Samsung release the following development items to the XDA Development Community, that the loyal consumer of their product may be able to enjoy everything that the SGH-T839 is capable of:
We urge you not to overlook this petition, as it is being circulated amongst several online communities that are dedicated to the Android Open Source Project for support. The influence of these communities over Samsung’s broader handheld-device customer base runs very deep; the XDA Developers Community alone has over 4.7 million registered users. We, the loyal consumer (and other), anticipate a prompt response to this matter. We also look forward to increased involvement from Samsung pertaining to the Android Open Source Project and hopefully a future device with similar form-factor of the SGH-T839.
Sincerely,
Edit 2: Was just thinking maybe "Release source to XDA community should be create developers release pack or something?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think we should ask for the release source for devoleping
I do not believe any of the official ROMs had the keystroke print statements enabled... someone can correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm not sure if I understand what you are asking Samsung for. Any partially complete work toward GB they might have laying around? Not to curse our chances, but I think they are not likely to release source for proprietary drivers.
Be very clear about what you're asking for. They might seriously consider one such request, if it is well reasoned, and within their power to grant.
One other thing to consider is sending this petition to T-Mobile as well. They can exert considerably more pressure on Samsung.
I left the "specific request" blank. It goes at the end of the 2nd to last paragraph after the colon. That's why it looks like I didn't ask for anything. If someone with the knowledge wants to give that list, it can be added and the other revisions can be made.
Sent from my SGH-T839 using xda app-developers app
Good first draft. Keep in mind your audience, though. We're unlikely to get Samsung to help us by insulting them. For example, "due to the absolute lack of support and development for this device" should be replaced with a different reason. You attract more flies with honey than vinegar. Maybe something about how the device has great potential, especially with the physical keyboard, but has been limited by its operating system. Speaking of keyboards, didn't pretty much all or most ROMs at the time come with the so-called key-logger? Also, keep in mind that Samsung and T-Mobile have no interest in supporting the Sidekick because they don't make any more money off it. They make money by getting people to upgrade to new phones. So whatever we ask them has to be easy for them, like just releasing to developers whatever they have lying around that isn't proprietary. Lastly, it's a bit misleading to say there are X million XDA members. The vast majority of them couldn't care less about the SK; I'm sure the SK community is rather small. Maybe highlight this fact: there are a few of us developers who love the SK as a development machine but our hands are tied because we don't have the code, etc. etc.
marathonjon said:
Good first draft. Keep in mind your audience, though. We're unlikely to get Samsung to help us by insulting them. For example, "due to the absolute lack of support and development for this device" should be replaced with a different reason. You attract more flies with honey than vinegar. Maybe something about how the device has great potential, especially with the physical keyboard, but has been limited by its operating system. Speaking of keyboards, didn't pretty much all or most ROMs at the time come with the so-called key-logger? Also, keep in mind that Samsung and T-Mobile have no interest in supporting the Sidekick because they don't make any more money off it. They make money by getting people to upgrade to new phones. So whatever we ask them has to be easy for them, like just releasing to developers whatever they have lying around that isn't proprietary. Lastly, it's a bit misleading to say there are X million XDA members. The vast majority of them couldn't care less about the SK; I'm sure the SK community is rather small. Maybe highlight this fact: there are a few of us developers who love the SK as a development machine but our hands are tied because we don't have the code, etc. etc.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Totally agree with this.
T-Mobile knows that they have everything because of loyal customers, not to mention how many of the hundreds of thousands of people who owned Sidekicks. Samsung understands this which is obviously why they decided to pick up the device two years ago.
Play this to our advantage. Tug on their heartstrings, so to speak.
Yeah, I agree. Haha I guess this letter wasn't the place to let my frustrations out ;P
Sent from my SGH-T839 using xda app-developers app