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.
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
Hi all,
I study this stuff and just came across this article which might be of interest. It's not that you haven't heard of this idea, rather that this article is current and offers contribution to knowledge.
http://theunderstatement.com/post/11982112928/android-orphans-visualizing-a-sad-history-of-support
I came here to a great extent out of discovering the poor software support from my phone's manufactuer, in my case Sony Ericsson.
The single most critical aspect of this article in my two eyes (other people may find something else depending on your education, work and interest) is that this article argues that Cyanogen getting the latest OS working on even old devices shows the manufacturers are just being cheap but that is awful judgement on their part - because we move on to a different manufacturer.
What do you think?
The nexus series is okay, but the rest... For me it was sure that I'll go with custom roms from the very beginning because of this s**t.
Wasn't there some kind of contract that the manufactures provide support for a certain amount of time? I read about it somewhere.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using XDA App
All i have to say it
WOW! thats crazy.
Personally I don't get why so many people are excited about the Samsung Galaxy S II. I have the Galaxy S. It came out at 2.1 when 2.2 had been out for months and finally got 2.2 about 6 months after it went on sale. NOTHING since.
For me, Samsung is a #neveragain product. ZERO support.
Yes, the manufacturers sometimes give clear support for some phones. My phone was launched around June 2010 on 1.6 (don't laugh lol) and I bought it that August. It was upgraded to 2.1. Around May/June 2011 an upgraded version was released instead of upgrading the 2010 line. Sony Ericsson said they 'give up to 2 years support and updates' for the phone. Most of the updates had negligible effect.
Any of you guys know your phone's support level?
Droidicus said:
Personally I don't get why so many people are excited about the Samsung Galaxy S II. I have the Galaxy S. It came out at 2.1 when 2.2 had been out for months and finally got 2.2 about 6 months after it went on sale. NOTHING since.
For me, Samsung is a #neveragain product. ZERO support.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
SGS update for GB has been out for several months everywhere except the USA for some models. That clearly makes this a USA carrier problem as Samsung has delievered timely updates outside of the USA.
The model for Android means the updates flow slowly through the system once they are announced and code is released. In BB and iOS, you get it all at once because its a closed system and RIM and Apple dont share anything with other companies.
Cooperation results in more variety and features but comes at the expense of slower implementation. This is seen in any situation, not just with mobile OS.
But it is the open source nature of Android which allows communities like Cyanogen and XDA to exist. We succeed where others fail.
Plus, while I like some Apple products like iPod, some of the rest of it is tremendously over-expensive clever marketing, where people show off their expensive goods to friends and pay for Apple's champagne parties in the process.
phoneyericsson said:
But it is the open source nature of Android which allows communities like...XDA to exist
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
XDA existed years before Android was released.
Perhaps but that doesn't mean that we don't benefit from systems like Android. With BB and iOS you begin with a closed system locked down.
The phrase is not mutually exclusive - that one point is true and the other false.
most app developers will end up targeting an ancient version of the OS in order to maximize market reach.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This doesn't bother me so much. I'm currently developing on a Rogers HTC Magic running 2.1 and I'm fine with that (ok not really, I'm getting the Galaxy Nexus in January). Anyway, the way I see it is targeting lower APIs just means there are fewer functions available for us to use, meaning we have to implement a few extra things ourselves. No big deal.
What is a big deal is the inconsistency of implementation of features by different manufacturers (eg Camera intent) That makes me rage.
---------- Post added at 06:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:33 PM ----------
phoneyericsson said:
Any of you guys know your phone's support level?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well keep in mind that your 2 year old phone may not be able to pull the greatest and latest version of Android. That could be one reason for a short support cycle.
As much as I would like rogers to update my phone to 2.2, it's not going to happen, because the hardware is not so good (by today's standards)
The author neglected the fact that there are hundreds of Android phones available and only 5 different iPhones (not counting the varying colors/storage spaces). It's far easier to provide and maintain updates for 5 devices than the 20+ Android devices each manufacturer has released within the previous two year period (minimum contract for subsidized pricing).
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using XDA App
Droidicus said:
Personally I don't get why so many people are excited about the Samsung Galaxy S II. I have the Galaxy S. It came out at 2.1 when 2.2 had been out for months and finally got 2.2 about 6 months after it went on sale. NOTHING since.
For me, Samsung is a #neveragain product. ZERO support.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Even the European Orange carrier branded Galaxy S is at 2.3.5. This non-support thingy is a US only problem (and probably some Asian countries).
American carriers are some blood sucking companies, of course they don't want to update their phones, because they must sell the next big thing.
And God, they fuc**d every good phone released there. That GNexus version from Verizon isn't even a google phone anymore.
US people should buy the international version if their network is compatible (like AT&T) and stop complaining. I only buy unlocked versions of the phones, and if I bought a low-end Android phone, I wouldn't complain about not getting updates. Seriously, you expect for your OEM to upgrade your 200$ (unlocked phone, I don't care how much is on contract) phone from 1.6 to 4.0 ?
I don't see my mom complaining about Android 2.3.3 version on her Galaxy Gio because he doesn't even know what an OS is. And even if the phone won't get updated anymore, the phone is perfectly working.
Now, if I do read tech blogs, I know what an OS is, and the most significant thing, I'm on XDA, is so hard to flash a custom rom on my almost out of warranty 18 months old phone ?
And what good is to update your phone if afterwards it will work like sh!t? 3GS is an example.
Some interesing points there...
- I agree that it wasn't really elaborated that the iPhone has a couple of variations whereas the Android situation involves many manufactuers so it is obviously going to work differently, watch Apple try fill those shoes. I don't really pay too much attention to Apple on that count though. While I think they do generally a good job looking after their own customers, take a look at their product portfolio - they have no interest in mass market generally, for quite a few years now they've moved away from iPods (companies which move away from their original core products have a struggle to survive) and into iPhones/iPads and now iTV incoming, which are, as we know, 'products of exlcusive consumption' which yield very high profit margins. That has nothing in common with the multi-manufactuer Android-approach, so I don't think very much about what Apple would do, simply, they wouldn't.
- Interesting note from the developer side there from that other person ^^^. And I hate throwing fuel in the fire, and I especially hate this term (it's a word pushed by Apple/Microsoft to spook Google's business partners in my opinion) but is fragmentation a problem?
- Also, this isn't an American problem. I'm European and we have the same problem. For you guys, contracts for 2 years -seems- to be normal there, but prepay is very popular here. The networks/carriers subsidise the handsets heavilly and you are not locked down really. There are some normally very expensive handsets in the shop now for €150 and I can use that for a year or whatever I want and switch next year. The network/carrier has paid a lot of subsidy to make it that cheap for me though. Contacts suit businesses perhaps more than consumers in this area. Secondly, minor point, but problems like Carrier IQ seem to be rampant in the US, whereas I've yet to find a company here using it. (there surely is, but they've yet to be named and shamed).
- Product support whether contract or prepay is usually defined. I just read another article point out that 2011 was the year of Froyo, which was released in 2010, it took so long for it to be rolled out. 2012 will be the year of Gingerbread, because it too is taking so long to roll out, yet we've just seen ICS come out...that Google strategy that some manufactuers signed up to...was it a joke?
My DM with a T-Mobile rep.
That was a waste since it was a known fact already. Wish you had asked them what bands the phone supports since they don't list them all anywhere. AT&T lists them all on the website and looks like the best choice if T-Mobile won't provide that info
lightninbug said:
My DM with a T-Mobile rep.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You said this...
I wouldn't be so sure until it's proven.
Finally, the Exynos 8895 also includes what Samsung is calling an “enhanced security sub-system with a separate security processing unit” for use with user authentication, mobile payments, and the like. Based on Samsung’s description this sounds a heck of a lot like Apple’s Secure Enclave, which would be a very welcome development, as in Apple’s case it has made their phones a lot harder to break into.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11149/samsung-announces-exynos-8895-soc-10nm
In reading your exchange with T-Mobile it came across fairly righteous - "it's my phone and I should be able to do what I want with it." Knowing T-Mobile's phones have locked bootloaders it's your choice whether to buy them or, like the CSR said in your exchange, find a phone that suits you and "bring your own." Trying to get them to reverse a security policy that helps far more people than it hurts seems like a pretty futile exercise.
The value of the modding community to a company with 52+M wireless subscribers is pretty low. There are 336K active (used the site in the past 30 days) XDA members. If every XDA member was on T-Mobile and moved to another carrier in protest that's less than 1/10 of 1% of T-Mobile's subscriber base. Samsung, the carriers, and even Google are far more interested in national and global corporate accounts and those accounts demand security. That's why Knox, locked bootloaders, and what's mentioned as coming in the above article exist. Companies like OnePlus, Oppo, and HTC aren't ever going to land big corporate and government contracts where Samsung can and does. That's why carriers and Samsung lock their bootloaders. The company I work for only allows iPhones to connect to Exchange. We Android users have to use some kludged containerized e-mail product that doesn't integrate with the rest of the phone and even then its only available on current model Samsung phones. It is what it is.
We'll get the engineering firmware leaked and have root anyways. Our little way of protesting.
ethanscooter said:
We'll get the engineering firmware leaked and have root anyways. Our little way of protesting.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe I'll wait for the Pixel2 this fall. I know that will be unlocked, easily rootable, and supported by the dev community. There are few options for the S7 now and I expect much the same for the S8. My last Samsung phone was a Note 3 and the dev support was limited. I love my current Nexus 6 so I am in no rush.
almahix said:
Maybe I'll wait for the Pixel2 this fall. I know that will be unlocked, easily rootable, and supported by the dev community. There are few options for the S7 now and I expect much the same for the S8. My last Samsung phone was a Note 3 and the dev support was limited. I love my current Nexus 6 so I am in no rush.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This might be a good plan...How big is the screen supposed to be?
954wrecker said:
That was a waste since it was a known fact already. Wish you had asked them what bands the phone supports since they don't list them all anywhere. AT&T lists them all on the website and looks like the best choice if T-Mobile won't provide that info
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here you go. It's been listed a day after since preorders started.
http://www.samsung.com/us/support/owners/product/galaxy-s8-plus-t-mobile
2G GSM: GSM850,GSM900,DCS1800,PCS1900
3G UMTS: B1(2100),B2(1900),B4(AWS),B5(850)
3G TD-SCDMA: B34(2010),B39(1880)
4G FDD LTE: B1(2100),B2(1900),B3(1800),B4(AWS),B5(850),B7(2600),B8(900),B12(700),B13(700),B18(800),B19(800),B20(800),B25(1900),B26(800),B66(AWS-3)
4G TDD LTE: B38(2600),B39(1900),B40(2300),B41(2500)
BarryH_GEG said:
You said this...
I wouldn't be so sure until it's proven.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11149/samsung-announces-exynos-8895-soc-10nm[/I]
In reading your exchange with T-Mobile it came across fairly righteous - "it's my phone and I should be able to do what I want with it." Knowing T-Mobile's phones have locked bootloaders it's your choice whether to buy them or, like the CSR said in your exchange, find a phone that suits you and "bring your own." Trying to get them to reverse a security policy that helps far more people than it hurts seems like a pretty futile exercise.
The value of the modding community to a company with 52+M wireless subscribers is pretty low. There are 336K active (used the site in the past 30 days) XDA members. If every XDA member was on T-Mobile and moved to another carrier in protest that's less than 1/10 of 1% of T-Mobile's subscriber base. Samsung, the carriers, and even Google are far more interested in national and global corporate accounts and those accounts demand security. That's why Knox, locked bootloaders, and what's mentioned as coming in the above article exist. Companies like OnePlus, Oppo, and HTC aren't ever going to land big corporate and government contracts where Samsung can and does. That's why carriers and Samsung lock their bootloaders. The company I work for only allows iPhones to connect to Exchange. We Android users have to use some kludged containerized e-mail product that doesn't integrate with the rest of the phone and even then its only available on current model Samsung phones. It is what it is.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I really don't agree with this. There is no reason they couldn't design a phone to be secure and able to flash other operating systems. Windows for example can use bitlocker, but that doesn't stop you from formating the drive out and install linux. I agree if you're leasing that phone the leasing company has the right to protect its asset, but if you buy it outright, you should be able to do what you want with it. Even if you had to send the phone to Samsung, you should have some avenue to unlock a device you own.
YellowGTO said:
I really don't agree with this. There is no reason they couldn't design a phone to be secure and able to flash other operating systems. Windows for example can use bitlocker, but that doesn't stop you from formating the drive out and install linux. I agree if you're leasing that phone the leasing company has the right to protect its asset, but if you buy it outright, you should be able to do what you want with it. Even if you had to send the phone to Samsung, you should have some avenue to unlock a device you own.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's the XDA spirit!
YellowGTO said:
I really don't agree with this. There is no reason they couldn't design a phone to be secure and able to flash other operating systems. Windows for example can use bitlocker, but that doesn't stop you from formating the drive out and install linux. I agree if you're leasing that phone the leasing company has the right to protect its asset, but if you buy it outright, you should be able to do what you want with it. Even if you had to send the phone to Samsung, you should have some avenue to unlock a device you own.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Kind of the tail (the single digit percentage of people wanting to root their phones regardless of the security implications) wagging the dog (everyone else concerned about security and 100% of companies wanting to protect their business data). Android security is so totally bankrupt that the company I work for won't allow Android devices to connect to Exchange. While iPhone users have full EAS access I'm stuck using OWA. I personally hope Samsung goes beyond KNOX to secure their phones so I and others like me can get real access to company assets rather than dealing with kluges and work-arounds. I'm sure that's why Samsung's doing more than Google to secure their phones. People who want unlocked bootloaders and root access have plenty of options other than Samsung so it's not like anyone's being harmed.
BarryH_GEG said:
Kind of the tail (the single digit percentage of people wanting to root their phones regardless of the security implications) wagging the dog (everyone else concerned about security and 100% of companies wanting to protect their business data). Android security is so totally bankrupt that the company I work for won't allow Android devices to connect to Exchange. While iPhone users have full EAS access I'm stuck using OWA. I personally hope Samsung goes beyond KNOX to secure their phones so I and others like me can get real access to company assets rather than dealing with kluges and work-arounds. I'm sure that's why Samsung's doing more than Google to secure their phones. People who want unlocked bootloaders and root access have plenty of options other than Samsung so it's not like anyone's being harmed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Samsung can add anything they want to secure the phones. Doesn't change the fact that you should be able to unlock the phone via some service. Konx is already the highest rated mass produced enterprise software (http://www.informationweek.com/mobi...eats-ios-android-gartner-finds/d/d-id/1325145), and it does just fine being rooted. It's a very expensive device that pretty much becomes garbage after a few years. On the other hand, I still use my touch pro tablet that runs 7.1.2. Not to mention if it were illegal to lock phones, shops would pop up overnight to upgrade peoples dated phones to the latest and greatest.
YellowGTO said:
Samsung can add anything they want to secure the phones. Doesn't change the fact that you should be able to unlock the phone via some service. Konx is already the highest rated mass produced enterprise software (http://www.informationweek.com/mobi...eats-ios-android-gartner-finds/d/d-id/1325145), and it does just fine being rooted. It's a very expensive device that pretty much becomes garbage after a few years. On the other hand, I still use my touch pro tablet that runs 7.1.2. Not to mention if it were illegal to lock phones, shops would pop up overnight to upgrade peoples dated phones to the latest and greatest.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
An analogy. You want a light weight performance oriented two seat convertible - a "true sports car." But you also want luxury appointments and an abundance of high-end optional equipment and a prestigious brand. Do you: A) buy something that meets your first set of requirements like a Mazda MX-5, or B) go to BMW forums and bash BMW and complain to fellow forum members that the Z4 isn't a "true sports car" because of its weight and price? Or worse, buy it and complain after the fact how horrible BMW is because of their product choices? It's an example of not being able to have your cake and eat it too. Mazda offers what they offer and BMW offers what they offer. You don't get to tell either to change their product strategy. You do get to vote with your wallet.
Samsung's got the most rigid Android security and seems to be ratcheting it up even further with a h/w security coprocessor in Exynos 8895. OnePlus, HTC, Huawei, Pixel/Nexus are the most liberal. It seems ludicrous to pick a Samsung phone for modding when clearly the product isn't the best choice. The other mentioned brands are a far better choice. You can't have your cake and eat it too. That's just the way life works.
If you believe an unlocked bootloader and rooting are a God given right since it's "your phone and you paid for it" the solutions simple. Don't buy a Samsung phone. And if you do, lamenting Samsung's security restrictions here after the fact just reinforce you shouldn't have bought the phone in the first place.
BarryH_GEG said:
An analogy. You want a light weight performance oriented two seat convertible - a "true sports car." But you also want luxury appointments and an abundance of high-end optional equipment and a prestigious brand. Do you: A) buy something that meets your first set of requirements like a Mazda MX-5, or B) go to BMW forums and bash BMW and complain to fellow forum members that the Z4 isn't a "true sports car" because of its weight and price? Or worse, buy it and complain after the fact how horrible BMW is because of their product choices? It's an example of not being able to have your cake and eat it too. Mazda offers what they offer and BMW offers what they offer. You don't get to tell either to change their product strategy. You do get to vote with your wallet.
Samsung's got the most rigid Android security and seems to be ratcheting it up even further with a h/w security coprocessor in Exynos 8895. OnePlus, HTC, Huawei, Pixel/Nexus are the most liberal. It seems ludicrous to pick a Samsung phone for modding when clearly the product isn't the best choice. The other mentioned brands are a far better choice. You can't have your cake and eat it too. That's just the way life works.
If you believe an unlocked bootloader and rooting are a God given right since it's "your phone and you paid for it" the solutions simple. Don't buy a Samsung phone. And if you do, lamenting Samsung's security restrictions here after the fact just reinforce you shouldn't have bought the phone in the first place.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very well said and the exact reason after my note 3 and note 5 I left for OnePlus
BarryH_GEG said:
An analogy. You want a light weight performance oriented two seat convertible - a "true sports car." But you also want luxury appointments and an abundance of high-end optional equipment and a prestigious brand. Do you: A) buy something that meets your first set of requirements like a Mazda MX-5, or B) go to BMW forums and bash BMW and complain to fellow forum members that the Z4 isn't a "true sports car" because of its weight and price? Or worse, buy it and complain after the fact how horrible BMW is because of their product choices? It's an example of not being able to have your cake and eat it too. Mazda offers what they offer and BMW offers what they offer. You don't get to tell either to change their product strategy. You do get to vote with your wallet.
Samsung's got the most rigid Android security and seems to be ratcheting it up even further with a h/w security coprocessor in Exynos 8895. OnePlus, HTC, Huawei, Pixel/Nexus are the most liberal. It seems ludicrous to pick a Samsung phone for modding when clearly the product isn't the best choice. The other mentioned brands are a far better choice. You can't have your cake and eat it too. That's just the way life works.
If you believe an unlocked bootloader and rooting are a God given right since it's "your phone and you paid for it" the solutions simple. Don't buy a Samsung phone. And if you do, lamenting Samsung's security restrictions here after the fact just reinforce you shouldn't have bought the phone in the first place.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The analogy is terrible. And the reason I use Samsung is for Knox. I'm not looking for root myself (at this moment). A better and simpler analogy would be you buy a miata, later on in life you want to do an LS1 swap but Mazada has welded the engine bay shut. There just isn't a reason for it. being able to change the operating system has no bearing on the security of a device. If they want to stop you from rooting Samsungs version of android fine, encrypt the disk, whatever they want. I should still be able to wipe out the partition and install something like Ubuntu phone (I know dead).
I have not posted this in questions - as I feel it is more of a discussion topic.
Why does Samsung take so long to roll out OTA updates?
Oreo was released to some European countries, and yet almost two weeks later the UK is still without the update. To be clear, I am talking about unbranded, generic devices from Samsung, not carrier branded because we can always point the finger at the carriers for that. However, Vodafone in Spain has managed to start the rollout of Oreo too.
Does anyone have an actual reason for why 'Rollouts' of the same software take Samsung so long?
People may point to 'Server Strain', however the Galaxy S8 makes up a small % of Samsung handsets, if Apple can roll out an update to millions of devices, Samsung can roll it out to a % of it's user base easily.
People may point to they want to make sure there are no bugs - Sony roll-out software, however it is a much quicker process and most people have an update within a week. I believe they had to halt the Nougat update midway through, but quickly resumed.
How is it European carriers can release the Oreo update, yet Samsung themselves cannot release the update?
Does anyone have the answers, or any theories that go beyond what we already know?
Furthermore, I could flash the update. However, why should I? Samsung should be able to get this out of the door quick enough, it is becoming a joke.
As first timer with Samsung my gut feeling is that this is caused by a mix of being too prudential and the fact that the 99% of their user base really don't care.
I have to say, coming from years of custom Roms and having almost always the latest software, I don't mind a bit of "slowness".
It's annoying but at the end I don't have huge problems that needs to be fixed.
I wish they would publish more often security updates.
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
It looks like, if you´re on international ROM, we´ll get monthly sec. updates -- https://security.samsungmobile.com/workScope.smsb
qpkqkma said:
It looks like, if you´re on international ROM, we´ll get monthly sec. updates -- https://security.samsungmobile.com/workScope.smsb
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
An extract from the disclaimer reads
"Please note that in some cases regular OS upgrades may cause delays to planned security updates. However, users can be rest assured the OS upgrades will include up-to-date security patches when delivered."
Based on that, Oreo rollout could be delayed again so that they can include the March update?
Maybe, so that next time you think of buying a Samsung phone, you will consider carriers (like Vodafone) rolls out update faster than the unlocked ones.
Which means the carrier gets another customer on their terms and conditions. Just a theory on business' perspective.
Carriers give deals to Apple. Samsung gives deal to carriers.
r0k3t said:
Maybe, so that next time you think of buying a Samsung phone, you will consider carriers (like Vodafone) rolls out update faster than the unlocked ones.
Which means the carrier gets another customer on their terms and conditions. Just a theory on business' perspective.
Carriers give deals to Apple. Samsung gives deal to carriers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is an interesting assumption, but based on what? The generic software rolled out to many countries (excluding some MAJOR ones) before Vodafone started rolling it out.
My argument is more about why roll it out in 3 or 4 countries, and not everywhere at once.
Also, surely it would not be in the interest of Samsung from a legal standpoint to be doing deals based on device security, which of course software updates include.
You guys sound like girls regretting life after a one night stand..
Thats just the usual shuffle of users to which you provide updates. You dont want to break things for everyone at once. Does not matter that it is stable release. It is the way big software providers work.
You may think of smaller companies that update everyone at once -> they also appear most frequently in news for things that are broken for all users.
Samsung sells device by advertising a curved screen and a good camera, not by advertising super fast android updates. Why spend money on something that can break your product, for the sake of a minor software change? The majority of samsung users do not even know what it means to update software, so why bother..
Thats a good businesses strategy, nothing else.
malimukk said:
You guys sound like girls regretting life after a one night stand..
Thats just the usual shuffle of users to which you provide updates. You dont want to break things for everyone at once. Does not matter that it is stable release. It is the way big software providers work.
You may think of smaller companies that update everyone at once -> they also appear most frequently in news for things that are broken for all users.
Samsung sells device by advertising a curved screen and a good camera, not by advertising super fast android updates. Why spend money on something that can break your product, for the sake of a minor software change? The majority of samsung users do not even know what it means to update software, so why bother..
Thats a good businesses strategy, nothing else.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well that sounds a bit harsh, but I generally agree with Malimukk. Look around you every second person you see is using a Samsung phone. They have to be super careful with every update. If they screw up, a lot more people will angrily stir up a ****storm on the internet, than if Sony or HTC would screw up an update.
Also I personally think it's totally fine if it takes up to 6 or 7 weeks for an update to hit all the devices. As long as Samsung releases the kernel sources quickly.
80% of Samsung users really do not care what softwareversion they are running and I'm sure Samsung will implement a working "check for updates"-Feature in the near future for the 20% like us.
Again these threads go no where but to arguments about this topic....
As stated many many times if you want timely updates buy google....
Thread closed