Related
According to T-Mobile's Official Twitter the testing out a hspa+ Phone likely HTC Android for release this summer
is the vibrant not hspa+ or do we just have hspa?
Just Hspa 7.2 when the new phone would be capable of 21
I would be more interesting in other specs, like processor, screen, etc... IMO hspa is plenty quick for smart phones and tethering when traveling.
Honestly, I dont think you'd notice the difference in speeds, unless downloading huge apps.
yea, I bet there would be no noticable browing difference other than the Downloads... Hell Ive never even got 7.2, let alone thinking about 21... But still I know that if I could have 21 I would want it...
but it would probably be a bigger community of people with that phone like there was with evo and nexus one since it's gsm and first HSPA+ and probably HTC with 3.7 - 4.3 inch screen with 1.2 ghz since tha'ts the speed of the hspa+ capable processor
Well, I hate HTC Sense. If I could get a new developer phone (to replace the N1), shipping with stock 3.0, I would be all over that.
I really do like TouchWiz 3.0, save for a few issues. It's very easy to transition from the iPhone into the Vibrant.
Hardware-wise, I don't know if I can leave this SAMOLED display. I'd need something similar, and I don't know what could even come close. Construction-wise, I'd like a heavier, metallic body to match my OS of choice.
But isn't this all for nothing? I thought the T-Mo announcement (for Project Emerald -- with Android 3.0) was that they were testing the phone this summer, for release in the Fall / Holiday window? That's what a rep told me, before he redacted the statement and said, "I'm not supposed to talk about that, actually...but I will say this: it's pretty sweet."
*whistle*
I think I'll stick with the Vibrant, unless the GPS / Compass issues really bug me (aren't fixed).
What if came with Stock Froyo and was Promoted like the nexus one and you know guaranteed to get gingerbread the day after announced
You know, as much as I love this phone, I think I will be replacing it with the fabled "Project Emerald" when it comes out. I'm thinking of buying a used G1 to use meanwhile.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
yeah but by that time we should have 2.2 on the vibrant and the speed of this phone is going to increase dramatically...and then you would most likely not notice any difference at all. the only thing that would make me leave this phone is probably another s-amoled display or something better.
I have a strong feeling that the samsung vibrant will have 2.2 but I have doubts on it have 3.0
Vibrant is 7.2 and I dont even see that in Boston, so HSPA+ will be like Sprint 4G = no where.
and as far as new phones and OS 3.0.......there is no a single word on both subjects yet so its pointless to guess when and what will get released......just like its pointless to guess is 3.0 will come to Vibrant. By the time 3.0 gets released, maybe there will be a HUGE dev team for Galaxy S phone line....
That's the one thing that keeps me skeptical. I don't want to have to worry about custom firmwares and all of that; especially considering that I enjoy some of the TouchWiz customizations, and can see custom ROMs leaving those behind.
I really hope that Samsung is 'in it to win it' with the Galaxy S line. I want them to support these phones until the technology in them prevents future updates.
I really wish that it worked like this: All manufacturers are required to ship with stock ROMs, but can construct their own proprietary apps and services which can be toggled. So, for example, the Vibrant would ship with stock 2.1, but the Samsung Calendar application would be the default, over Google's. If you wanted to switch back to the stock Android apps, you could do so quite easily. Because that's all I really want that's different, to be honest: the iPhone-like TouchWiz applications. I could deal with the stock launcher and widgets just fine.
That's really all I want, and I hope we start seeing that with the next iteration of Android.
kolyan said:
Vibrant is 7.2 and I dont even see that in Boston, so HSPA+ will be like Sprint 4G = no where.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is just a dumb statement. T-Mobile's HSPA+ will cover 180million pops by the end of the year. Just because you don't have fast speeds now doesn't mean that T-Mobile isn't doing anything to increase those speeds. Oh, and the 7.2 of your phones specs are theoretical, not actual. Actual should be about 5mbs if your on a site that has been upgraded for high speed, no other data use, and in a perfect environment. If its not an upgraded cell site you'll get 500K-1M.
Jon C said:
I really wish that it worked like this: All manufacturers are required to ship with stock ROMs, but can construct their own proprietary apps and services which can be toggled. So, for example, the Vibrant would ship with stock 2.1, but the Samsung Calendar application would be the default, over Google's. If you wanted to switch back to the stock Android apps, you could do so quite easily. Because that's all I really want that's different, to be honest: the iPhone-like TouchWiz applications. I could deal with the stock launcher and widgets just fine.
That's really all I want, and I hope we start seeing that with the next iteration of Android.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I actually like that different phones come with different UI's. Gives us more options. If you don't like touchwiz, install LauncherPro or ADW Launcher.
setzer715 said:
This is just a dumb statement. T-Mobile's HSPA+ will cover 180million pops by the end of the year. Just because you don't have fast speeds now doesn't mean that T-Mobile isn't doing anything to increase those speeds. Oh, and the 7.2 of your phones specs are theoretical, not actual. Actual should be about 5mbs if your on a site that has been upgraded for high speed, no other data use, and in a perfect environment. If its not an upgraded cell site you'll get 500K-1M.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
why is it dumb ? WTF ? Obviously HSPA+ will come, but its not here yet, its dumb of you to assume otherwise.....
kolyan said:
why is it dumb ? WTF ? Obviously HSPA+ will come, but its not here yet, its dumb of you to assume otherwise.....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You made the statement that T-Mobiles HSPA+ will be no where, like Sprints 4G. This is predicting one companies outcome based on another companies shortcomings. That makes it a dumb statement. Hey, that apple might taste bad because the orange I just had did.
iceshinobi said:
I have a strong feeling that the samsung vibrant will have 2.2 but I have doubts on it have 3.0
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It all depends on samsung (which doesn't have the best record) but with its huge international base I think they'll still support the phone and release the next version of Android.
I highly doubt that the Most powerful phones today (Droid X, SGS) will be too underpowered for the next release of Android if thats what you're worried about.
The modding community seems to be fairly strong for such a new device, I think itll continue to grow and will have a community that rivals the G1 and the N1 so what support samsung lacks the community will make up for.
As regards to the OP, the T-Mobiles HSPA+ device wont be next gen, so its not really worth waiting for IMO. Not to mention itll be an only Tmobile device (unlike the 4 major US carriers SGS variants + international) so the community will be smaller.
setzer715 said:
You made the statement that T-Mobiles HSPA+ will be no where, like Sprints 4G. This is predicting one companies outcome based on another companies shortcomings. That makes it a dumb statement. Hey, that apple might taste bad because the orange I just had did.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
its just i am not predicting....i am talking about NOW. and now HSPA+ is already rolling out and I dont even get full HSPA speeds yet. I would focus on getting HSPA in more places, I still get EDGE in many....
sometimes i am jealous of my friends ATT or Sprint which get 3G in mountains where I have GPRS
This shows that the chip issue is bothering more than just consumers. Hopefully this pressure will help us maintain control over our phones.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-sour...r-android-becoming-a-political-liability/7588
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using XDA App
Ghostcreamy said:
This shows that the chip issue is bothering more than just consumers. Hopefully this pressure will help us maintain control over our phones.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-sour...r-android-becoming-a-political-liability/7588
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
*sigh*
What chip issue exactly?
Stick it to Google, T-mobile... The cellphone manufacturers are starting to imprint chips to bypass any OS modifications... I can clearly say "it's only a matter of time until this cheapy little chip is cracked."
At this point it really doesn't matter if its a chip, a bug or bad juju big brother is starting to take notice and that is good for us.
Wow, so why doesn't anyone ever bring up the Droid X? Or this this just mainly a ploy to take aim at T-mobile?
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using XDA App
This is indeed very good news for the customer (like us) who like to do more than just accept how the phone comes. Keep up the pressure people! =)
krayshunist said:
*sigh*
What chip issue exactly?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Seconded.
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using XDA App
janus zeal said:
Seconded.
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This chip is why we cant have Perma Root. Look for Root thread and you will see what i mean and a much better explanation hehe
Ehh... this article is bull****. It's just some more hype written by another Android user for ZDNet. If you look at the sourced article, it does not mention any impending predicament for Schmidt and barely talks about Google. This just hype... for example:
The ZDnet author writes in his article:
It is now obvious that it’s the latter step Google took with Android and folks in Washington are starting to take notice.
The cited article doesn't mention a political quandary headed by Google. It can be summarized well by the last sentence. And the only relevance to Google and Schmidt in that article is a short blurb referring to another blog post on the same site.
The fundamental question the FCC now needs to answer is not if developers will find a way around the latest blocks, but if companies should be allowed to continue actively blocking users from truly owning and having full control over the mobile devices they buy in the first place.
and
On Tuesday October 5, 2010 the New America Foundation posted a blog highlighting a new “feature” of the T-Mobile's G2 with Google phone (G2).
Following that link takes us to the New American Foundation site which posted the following on Oct 5th (with an update on the 7th):
Unfortunately, the G2 also comes with built-in hardware that restricts what software a device owner might wish to install.
and
Clearly, the included software on T-Mobile's phone overrides a user's rights to run the legal software and applications of their choice. Instead, a microchip on the new T-Mobile Android phone acts just like a virus -- overwriting a user's preferred software and changing preferences and settings to change settings and software to conform to the desires of a third party. Users of the new "T-Mobile G2 with Google" phone should be warned that their device will overwrite their software modifications. We are seeking further clarification as to the legality of this software.
As you can see this is between the FCC, T-Mobile and possibly HTC. I don't foresee Google taking any real interest in this because it can only cost them money. Sure Google has made some noble contributions, but how much can they gain from protecting their interests? Not an awful much in this case. Mobile phone manufacturers and network providers will keep using the Android operating system. And the fact that Google licensed the Android operating system does not readily mean they are entitled to enforce it.
If you are interested in the legality of enforcing a license like the GPL, I highly suggest reading: http://www.jltp.uiuc.edu/archives/kumar.pdf
Here's a blurb that describes the predicament:
Two competing theories attempt to explain why the GPL is
enforceable. The first theory, backed by the GPL’s creator Richard
Stallman, declares that the GPL is a non-contractual license, rather than
a contract. Eben Moglen, general counsel for Stallman’s Free Software
Foundation (“FSF”), has stated that “[l]icenses are not contracts: the
work’s user is obliged to remain within the bounds of the license not
because she voluntarily promised, but because she doesn’t have any right
to act at all except as the license permits.”28 This theory presents
problems, because it does not account for the possibility of the licensor
withdrawing the license to the detriment of the licensee. Draft 2 of GPL
v.3 states that “[a]ll rights granted under this License are granted for the
term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated
conditions are met.”29 However, the draft provides no guidance regarding
what kind of legal remedy is available to a licensee if the licensor
attempts to revoke previously granted rights.
The second theory holds that the GPL is a contract. This theory is
plausible, because traditional software licenses are generally interpreted
as contracts. But such licenses also have cash consideration. Contract
proponents argue that consideration does exist under the GPL. But
ultimately, they are unable to show that there is a meeting of minds
between the licensor and licensee, thus failing the requirements of
contract formation.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
funkeee said:
Ehh... this article is bull****. It's just some more hype written by another Android user for ZDNet. If you look at the sourced article, it does not mention any impending predicament for Schmidt and barely talks about Google. This just hype... for example:
The ZDnet author writes in his article:
It is now obvious that it’s the latter step Google took with Android and folks in Washington are starting to take notice.
The cited article doesn't mention a political quandary headed by Google. It can be summarized well by the last sentence. And the only relevance to Google and Schmidt in that article is a short blurb referring to another blog post on the same site.
The fundamental question the FCC now needs to answer is not if developers will find a way around the latest blocks, but if companies should be allowed to continue actively blocking users from truly owning and having full control over the mobile devices they buy in the first place.
and
On Tuesday October 5, 2010 the New America Foundation posted a blog highlighting a new “feature” of the T-Mobile's G2 with Google phone (G2).
Following that link takes us to the New American Foundation site which posted the following on Oct 5th (with an update on the 7th):
Unfortunately, the G2 also comes with built-in hardware that restricts what software a device owner might wish to install.
and
Clearly, the included software on T-Mobile's phone overrides a user's rights to run the legal software and applications of their choice. Instead, a microchip on the new T-Mobile Android phone acts just like a virus -- overwriting a user's preferred software and changing preferences and settings to change settings and software to conform to the desires of a third party. Users of the new "T-Mobile G2 with Google" phone should be warned that their device will overwrite their software modifications. We are seeking further clarification as to the legality of this software.
As you can see this is between the FCC, T-Mobile and possibly HTC. I don't foresee Google taking any real interest in this because it can only cost them money. Sure Google has made some noble contributions, but how much can they gain from protecting their interests? Not an awful much in this case. Mobile phone manufacturers and network providers will keep using the Android operating system. And the fact that Google licensed the Android operating system does not readily mean they are entitled to enforce it.
If you are interested in the legality of enforcing a license like the GPL, I highly suggest reading: http://www.jltp.uiuc.edu/archives/kumar.pdf
Here's a blurb that describes the predicament:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Whatever... It's whatever you want it to be... Stop trying to ruin the excitement here...
I think the real issue her is the we own the phone and have the right to install or uninstall any application we want that is not integral to the proper operation of the phone without needing root access. This just isn't a T-mobile issue either, all cell providers do the same thing. I doubt it will change anytime soon without the government getting involved.
naria01 said:
Whatever... It's whatever you want it to be... Stop trying to ruin the excitement here...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can also try thinking for yourself as opposed to accepting everything you read, whether it's my post or the article.
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using XDA App
just out of curiosity
is it possible that by "rooting" our phones we would then be able to circumvent some of the failsafes or even bypass billing processes that our network providers have in place?
if there is even the slightest hint of a yes then i would say that any network provider would be entitled to take "reasonable" action to protect their investment as im sure that in any contract or terms of use guide the networks have there would be a section saying something similiar, if not more wordy and legal'ish
Regardless of sensationalism or whatever this is good for us.. I just can't believe the responses here or hell in most of the G2 forums. Most of you are like puppies who will lay over just for a corporate tummy rub. WTF! Why are the "this phone rocks root or not!!11!!" people even on a DEVELOPER website? Jesus people you are either with or against the thing that made cyanogenmod a household name....open android.
I can clearly say XDA was not founded on the principal of HEY MY PHONE CAME JUST THE WAY I LIKED IT....AHHH THANKS HTC.
Please get behind the cause people.
funkeee said:
You can also try thinking for yourself as opposed to accepting everything you read, whether it's my post or the article.
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Let me guess... you voted for obama...
naria01 said:
Let me guess... you voted for obama...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No.
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using XDA App
naria01 said:
Let me guess... you voted for obama...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
WTF...does voting for Obama have to do with this.....some people.
Sent from my DETHFONE (G2)
OP thanks for the link to the info it was interesting to know that more than just consumers are taking notice even if it doesn't go very far.
Mod, please close this thread before its dominated by "truck stop politics." This isn't the place to discuss who voted for who and why or why not it was a good idea.
moodecow said:
just out of curiosity
is it possible that by "rooting" our phones we would then be able to circumvent some of the failsafes or even bypass billing processes that our network providers have in place?
if there is even the slightest hint of a yes then i would say that any network provider would be entitled to take "reasonable" action to protect their investment as im sure that in any contract or terms of use guide the networks have there would be a section saying something similiar, if not more wordy and legal'ish
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
... no. Billing is done on carrier side, not on the phone. In fact, the carrier doesn't even know which phone you're currently using, and they don't really care beyond forcing you to buy certain plans with certain phones.
Snuggl3s said:
This chip is why we cant have Perma Root. Look for Root thread and you will see what i mean and a much better explanation hehe
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did you even read the root threads you just referenced? If so, you clearly don't understand what's in them so read the wiki.
I find it odd that the article that the OP linked to mentions T-Mobile's claims of a poorly coded app almost bringing the network down helps they argument for blocking root. The problem is, based on what I can from the TmoNews article on the app, that app had nothing to do with rooting. Any attempt to link that app to root problems for carriers is pure FUD.
Is it too much to ask that T-Mobile just come out and say that rooting and flashing ROMs leads to higher support costs? Then we can at least have an honest debate.
AndroidSpin and BGR are reporting that a reliable T-Mobile Source told them that there is a fully functioning 2.2 OTA for the T-Mobile Vibrant, but that Samsung is holding the OTA back. The report then says that Samsung fears that if the OTA is released then this would devalue the upcoming T-Mobile Vibrant 4G. (I would post a link, but I do not have 8 post. If someone could for me that would be great.) Now, I know that the hardware is different, but does anyone think that Samsung may be doing the same thing to us fascinate users considering that a new Samsung LTE phone is coming out soon? This would make sense condersidering the Telus fascinate got 2.2 before we did. Now again I know the hardware is different, but it doesn't make sense they would get it before us considering the fascinate has been out longer for us and that they are more of us. It would also explain the DL09 release. Samsung may just be trying to hold us over until they decide to release 2.2 once the LTE phone sales are up. This is just something to think about. I personally am just going to flash Kaos's 2.2 once the data works
Source:
http://androidspin.com/2011/01/12/breaking-t-mobile-internals-confirm-samsung-is-holding-the-android-world-hostage/
Is there a new Vibrant-style Sammy coming to Verizon that might put us in the same boat as our T-Mobular comrads?
"SamsungMobileUS Samsung Mobile USA
We want Galaxy S owners to have simple/reliable upgrade. We r running tests due to complexity/unique functionality.
4 Jan Favorite Retweet Reply
SamsungMobileUS Samsung Mobile USA
We are working to make the Android 2.2/Froyo upgrade available to all U.S. Galaxy S owners as soon as possible.
4 Jan "
That is complete and total crap..... they shouldn't be holding back Froyo just to "improve" sales of the Vibrant 4g... the 4g should make enough incentive if someone really wants the 4g version of the phone. Also, isn't it a little early to be releasing a 4g phone when it is just now becoming available? I could be wrong!?!?!?
DarthCivicus said:
That is complete and total crap..... they shouldn't be holding back Froyo just to "improve" sales of the Vibrant 4g... the 4g should make enough incentive if someone really wants the 4g version of the phone. Also, isn't it a little early to be releasing a 4g phone when it is just now becoming available? I could be wrong!?!?!?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
T-Mobile has had their "4G" out for some time now. Not quite as long as Sprint, but it's been around for a few months at least.
Just some more information. The Samsung LTE phone is suppose to hit Verizon in February. There are a few Samsung Galaxy S phones rumored to be getting froyo in March. This would leave a month for 3g galaxy s phones to still be on 2.1 while the new phones are on 2.2 or 2.3.
So the samsung LTE is probably to complete with the Iphone release 2/10/2011?
Seems totally non-bogus to me. If they already have working builds of froyo on the Galaxy Tab and 4G phones, which all contain pretty similar hardware, it's no doubt that Samsung has working froyo builds for the Fascinate.
It makes perfect sense in regards to their effed up strategy plan of continuing the release of updated phones but delaying software updates on already released ones. It's clear that these guys are holding back the 2.2 update on our device so that they can make more sales on the upcoming devices.
To be honest, it's not that my fascinate doesn't already do what I need it to do or gives me certain issues on its current software, but I just can't stay loyal to a company that continues to disregard their customers' concerns.
Natamos said:
Seems totally non-bogus to me. If they already have working builds of froyo on the Galaxy Tab and 4G phones, which all contain pretty similar hardware, it's no doubt that Samsung has working froyo builds for the Fascinate.
It makes perfect sense in regards to their effed up strategy plan of continuing the release of updated phones but delaying software updates on already released ones. It's clear that these guys are holding back the 2.2 update on our device so that they can make more sales on the upcoming devices.
To be honest, it's not that my fascinate doesn't already do what I need it to do or gives me certain issues on its current software, but I just can't stay loyal to a company that continues to disregard their customers' concerns.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My sentiments exactly. The question is, will this rumor affect their timetables? This whole thing is so political...
I don't buy it. The draw of the new phones is 4G, or LTE, not the version of Android it's running. The fact that it's running 2.2 wouldn't sway someone to buy one phone over the other for the general consumer. And that is the market that matters most to the manufacturers. To the more advanced users it might make a difference, but they make up a very small percentage.
Doesn't hold weight in my opinion.
Kevin Gossett said:
I don't buy it. The draw of the new phones is 4G, or LTE, not the version of Android it's running. The fact that it's running 2.2 wouldn't sway someone to buy one phone over the other for the general consumer. And that is the market that matters most to the manufacturers. To the more advanced users it might make a difference, but they make up a very small percentage.
Doesn't hold weight in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its a bullet point. Since Samsung did not opt to be part of the droid line on verizon, any additional bullet points adds to the selling factor of the phone. Sales people will use this to push people to the newer phones, saying things like "Its got the latest Android 2.2" or "It has the version of Android that supports flash". Its just in poor taste for Samsung to do this, and to me, its the same with Apple releasing the same iPhone for verizon that's been on at&t for 7 months or so now. I wouldn't get an iphone until after there announcement later this year, because since 2008, they have released a new iphone every year. Ok, sorry, I got off topic, but as you can see other companies do similar things just to sell more phones. Looking at all the companies with android smartphones, HTC and MOTO have done good jobs keep their android phones up to date. Samsung needs to step it up.
If said source is referring to JL5, there is a reason they are holding it back...its a piece of garbage.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA App
Count me as skeptical, the source seems contradicts himself, unless I'm misreading:
…Being that, Vibrant 4G and Vibrant have exactly same stats, added FFC and a new movie and the 4G. But i will tell you this, the original vibrant CAN utilize 4G FULLY. Yes FULLY. not what they are telling you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In a subsequent correspondence:
We have already put it out there that most of out devices would see a speed boost with the new network. Just the Vibrant will see a bit more. So I dont see why that is such a huge surprise to your readers. But not full 4G.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Still, who knows. It wouldn't surprise me if they scheduled the update to be closer to the release date (VZW released 5.0 for the Storm 1 a day or two before the Storm 2 went on sale). If it does exist, and isn't a POS, it will probably get leaked.
I can see this, but it is stupid as the LTE feature alone should be enough to push people to upgrade. Additionally, those with Galaxy S phones have all had them for less than two years (typical upgrade timeframe). So how many people do they really think they can pursued to switch? Seems far more harmful to continue to piss off your existing user base who might consider later LTE phones at end of year or next when upgrade option is available.
I don't think they want to try and get people to switch. Its more for new sales. If the vibrant is sitting there for half the price (galaxy S phones are reaching the discounted portion of their lifespan) running nearly the same specs, minus the 4G, it will look pretty attractive to a decent chunck of consumers. If salesmen can say "this new one is faster and has a newer operating system" most people will think "new MUST be better" and blindly go for that.
Like someone else already said, it would just be a bullet point for salesmen.
from a business point of view, samsung did the right thing. Why fix what isn't broke, while making something in the future look much more desirable. They will make most of their money this way.
Honestly, the dev community is a very very VERY small portion of their clients. A couple thousand out of however many million phones they've sold... Most people are perfectly happy living in ignorance about all these damn desert names. ESPECIALLY now that they have a working GPS on the phone.
So why please a couple thousand, when they could be making millions on future phones?
Unfortunately for us, this blows! But they are a business. Businesses lie. ultimate goal is to make the dough...
BSayre18 said:
Just some more information. The Samsung LTE phone is suppose to hit Verizon in February. There are a few Samsung Galaxy S phones rumored to be getting froyo in March. This would leave a month for 3g galaxy s phones to still be on 2.1 while the new phones are on 2.2 or 2.3.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wouldn't count on a Feb release....
DarthCivicus said:
So the samsung LTE is probably to complete with the Iphone release 2/10/2011?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The ONLY LTE phone that would be able to meet a Feb 10th deadline would be the HTC Thunderbolt. And thats not even a for sure, BUT, its the only shot, if any.
I guarantee it will be out by Valentine's Day, not that anyone cares, except for me. But you have my word, nonetheless.
Two words:
Screw Samsung.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA App
Wtf does a Vibrant story have to do with us? Nothing.
Those guys have a zillion Froyo variants leaked anyway. Don't cry for them.
s44 said:
Wtf does a Vibrant story have to do with us? Nothing.
Those guys have a zillion Froyo variants leaked anyway. Don't cry for them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It has a lot to do with us. If they have froyo held back, we have froyo held back.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA App
I am cross-posting this from another thread, but thought it needed to be shown here for those that don't venture out to other forums on XDA. It may be true or may not, if this has been posted here before I apologize, but it didn't show up having been here when I made the title.
This same story has also been posted to LifeHacker as factual information: http://lifehacker.com/5736836/this-is-why-your-galaxy-s-phones-havent-updated-past-21
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.Source
This has already been posted, and is a horrible rumor at best.
The internet secret. People will believe anything they read.
The internet... apparently it's infallible.
i believe everything I read on the internet.
Did you know aliends built the pyramids!?
Are aliends different from aliens?
Like a new breed?
internet explorer should have a spell checker
Kevin Gossett said:
This has already been posted, and is a horrible rumor at best.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Proof?
It's annoying how quick you guys are to dismiss something immediately then try to make a joke of it. I never stated it as fact, but it hasn't been shared in this detail on our forums.
tlogank said:
Proof?
It's annoying how quick you guys are to dismiss something immediately then try to make a joke of it. I never stated it as fact, but it hasn't been shared in this detail on our forums.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The best proof is common sense.
1. Verizon knows what they are doing, before they signed the contract.
2. If Samsung changes the rules mid contract, Verizon is likely to sue them, and Samsung knows this.
3. Were it true, then there would not be new builds being leaked all the time for the other big carriers, and there would not be new Verizon builds (that have not leaked). Yes, all these builds are marked with compile dates. Samsung is not going to tie up their resources on something that is not going to happen due to carriers refusing. They would simply halt all work until a settlement was made.
4. Neither Samsung, nor Verizon would sell docks requiring 2.2 to work properly, if they had not already had a plan to release it in the future.
5. I take the word of an actual Samsung employee who said it was bull****, over an internet rumor.
(new!)
6. Samsung would have taken legal action by now, subpoena'ed XDA, and forced them to hand over the whistle blower's IP address, and made them pull it off the forums. None of which has happened.
People dismiss stuff like this, just like they dismiss tall tales of BigFoot, Aliens, and the Female Orgasm. Actually, that last one is true
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
tlogank said:
Proof?
It's annoying how quick you guys are to dismiss something immediately then try to make a joke of it. I never stated it as fact, but it hasn't been shared in this detail on our forums.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
really? After scrolling all the way down to page 2 of this forum, I came across this:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=916692
I really had to dig for it, though, so I understand why you didn't see it. I mean, who looks at page 2 anyway? Page 1 is where it's at.
Sarcasm aside, yes it has been discussed already in this forum. And on another note, it's annoying how quick some people are to believing things like this. Legitimate reasons have been stated for this not to be true, but the only basis of fact in this is the original poster's word. We aren't being naive, just realistic. And, trust me, these things turn out to be false more often than not anyway.
adrynalyne said:
The best proof is common sense.
1. Verizon knows what they are doing, before they signed the contract.
2. I Samsung changes the rules mid contract, Verizon is likely to sue them, and Samsung knows this.
3. Were it true, then there would not be new builds being leaked all the time for the other big carriers, and there would not be new Verizon builds (that have not leaked). Yes, all these builds are marked with compile dates. Samsung is not going to tie up their resources on something that is not going to happen due to carriers refusing. They would simply halt all work until a settlement was made.
4. Neither Samsung, nor Verizon would sell docks requiring 2.2 to work properly, if they had not already had a plan to release it in the future.
5. I take the word of an actual Samsung employee who said it was bull****, over an internet rumor.
People dismiss stuff like this, just like they dismiss tall tales of BigFoot, Aliens, and the Female Orgasm. Actually, that last one is true
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I fail to see how any of that is common sense.
1. Verizon's contract may have not included these updates as noted.
2. See #1, that by no means suggests anything was changed.
3. Leaked builds by other carriers has no bearing with Verizon.
4. Samsung isn't going to re-invent the wheel for one carrier, and vzw has sold accessories that didn't work properly in the past (Droid X is a good example of a fail on accessory compatibility), and I don't see how samsung is halting anything due to 1 carrier... the vzw contract may require updates to the current OS, they can't simple halt all work, just what isn't paid for which would be completely legal.
5. Your source to everyone else is just as viable as the source in the first post, and not every single samsung employee is aware of every ordeal within a large company.
Honestly, your entire post holds as much validity as the first. I'm not gullible to take any of these as fact... but the first post makes sense, and could very well be true.
Who knows, honestly does anyone care why? It doesn't change anything knowing the truth of why we don't have froyo, nor will it get us froyo any faster.
irascible said:
I fail to see how any of that is common sense.
1. Verizon's contract may have not included these updates as noted.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, of course not. They just sold docks expecting not to upgrade to 2.2
3. Leaked builds by other carriers has no bearing with Verizon.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nope, but compile dates do. Think hard about this one, its tricky.
4. Samsung isn't going to re-invent the wheel for one carrier, and vzw has sold accessories that didn't work properly in the past (Droid X is a good example of a fail on accessory compatibility), and I don't see how samsung is halting anything due to 1 carrier... the vzw contract may require updates to the current OS, they can't simple halt all work, just what isn't paid for which would be completely legal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The accessories require 2.2. They are not broken, they are disabled. I didnt say MRs cease, i said froyo work would cease. By the way, epic fail on you reading the original source that said ALL US carriers were refusing.
5. Your source to everyone else is just as viable as the source in the first post, and not every single samsung employee is aware of every ordeal within a large company.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My source has turned out to be more reliable than any of these rumor mills. I am not the only one who trusts him.
tlogank said:
Proof?
It's annoying how quick you guys are to dismiss something immediately then try to make a joke of it. I never stated it as fact, but it hasn't been shared in this detail on our forums.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's more annoying how quick people are to believe stuff on the internet. There are way too many holes in that story. UK, Indian and Canadian carriers have all released Froyo. It is known to be in testing with all four US carriers. Not to mention Samsung and the carriers are releasing Froyo for other devices.
Not to mention the whole NDA thing. You'd have to be a complete idiot to think posting under an anonymous name on the internet protects you. If it WERE true, he'd already be fired (and probably sued), and Samsung/the carriers' lawyers would've ordered XDA to remove the thread.
Posting the lifehacker link is a joke, they were just tipped and linked to the XDA thread. If it had any semblance of truth, it would've been picked up by a lot more places, and to date I haven't seen it on the android blogs, nor on engadget.
I'm not going to bicker back and forth on hearsay, as it's just childish. However, vzw has made mistakes and sold equipment that wasn't compatible in the past. That's fact, and you can look into the Droid X involving their dock and cases, if you are truly that bored.
What was said, not said, or miss-interpreted is irrelevant. None of it is solid proof or holds any validity, and even if it was... it wouldn't matter.
I said it once, and i'll say it again. It doesn't change anything, we don't have froyo, and it won't get us froyo any faster.
/End
I'm not going to bicker back and forth on hearsay, as it's just childish. However, vzw has made mistakes and sold equipment that wasn't compatible in the past. That's fact, and you can look into the Droid X involving their dock and cases, if you are truly that bored.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then stop bickering. Did said DX accessories, have a sticker like this on them? I bet not.
adrynalyne said:
Then stop bickering. Did said DX accessories, have a sticker like this on them? I bet not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nor is the galaxy s only verizon, as the droid x is.. that sticker proves nothing; and you're just arguing for the sake of. So, i'll just let you attack moving forward on your own so you have some sort of fulfillment if that's your goal.
That dock is verizon only, however. If you think that sticker is not an indicator that verizon plans to update to 2.2 which would have been decided prior to release of the device, then you are naive.
The funny thing is, I have not attacked you. You are just unnerved that I disagreed with you. In most places that's called a debate, not an attack.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA App
iPhone User? 90% Chance You’re On The Latest OS. Android User? 0.4% Chance
Didn't want to start a new topic for this...either way, interesting read:
http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/17/ios-android-breakdown/#
MADDAN18 said:
Didn't want to start a new topic for this...either way, interesting read:
http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/17/ios-android-breakdown/#
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's a lot easier to keep things updated when you have 4-5 hardware revisions to worry about, and you're also controlling all of the hardware in the device. Android has how many different people making the hardware? And none of the hardware makers write the full software for the phone, only pieces of it. And, those hardware makers are constantly pushing to sell new products, so they have to allocate resources appropriately, and new products will almost always get more attention than old products. If you take into account that Android 2.x is just over a year old, and that it is on >85% of devices, I'd say Android isn't doing to bad. Froyo is just over 8 months old and on >50% of devices, and I'm guessing that when Samsung finishes rolling out Froyo to the SGS phones, that number will jump dramatically.
If this is all true, I am going back to Moto / HTC. This will be my last Samsung. With the Omnia, they did something similar. Takes forever to release an upgrade, I got fed up and went to BB Storm.
tlogank said:
I am cross-posting this from another thread, but thought it needed to be shown here for those that don't venture out to other forums on XDA. It may be true or may not, if this has been posted here before I apologize, but it didn't show up having been here when I made the title.
This same story has also been posted to LifeHacker as factual information: http://lifehacker.com/5736836/this-is-why-your-galaxy-s-phones-havent-updated-past-21
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.Source
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Samsung's official response, as posted on Gizmodo:
"Samsung does not charge carriers for updates to new versions of Android.
We are working to make the Android 2.2/Froyo upgrade available to all U.S. Galaxy S owners as soon as possible. Due to the complexity and unique functionality of each Galaxy S device, we are performing additional testing. Samsung feels it is important to make the Android 2.2/Froyo upgrade available only after we feel that we can give the millions of U.S. Galaxy S owners a simple and reliable upgrade experience."
So I don't know about you guys, but I am tired of waiting for ICS. Even more so I am tired of there being not a word spoken about the progress of the update from Google, Sprint, or Samsung. Being that I am still paying the phones subsidized price to Sprint with my monthly payments, I have taken my complaints to their official forum.
http://community.sprint.com/baw/community/buzzaboutwireless/phones-and-devices/samsung/nexus_s_
I encourage all of you that are tired of the silence of these companies to please join me on Sprints forums and voice your complaints. Maybe if enough of us speak up someone will realize it is better to have transparency even when things go wrong.
*I know some of you will say quit complaining and flash a rom. I know what my options are, but that does not excuse these companies for treating us the way that they are. Sprint should not be advertising the Nexus S 4G as receiving "OS updates as soon as humanly possible"*
I've been wondering this for a while.. when the ota update comes out, do you (as in everyone who's waiting for it) plan on using it?
Drop w/e custom ics rom you might have with performance tweaks, themes, status bar toggles, settings you'd never get in a stock rom, etc. etc.?
"treating us the way that they are"? Maybe you've forgotten that Google pulled the first ics update because of issues, and they already have 4.0.5 planned, ics is obviously having issues.
Don't get me wrong, i can definitely understand the frustration with no news about anything at all. I can see your reasoning for complaining to Sprint about that.
i dunno, I'm just curious as to why everyone is freaking out over it. imo they should be pestering Google to release the 4.0.4 source for us to fix some things in our roms, instead of bothering the carrier
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk
kyouko said:
I've been wondering this for a while.. when the ota update comes out, do you (as in everyone who's waiting for it) plan on using it?
Drop w/e custom ics rom you might have with performance tweaks, themes, status bar toggles, settings you'd never get in a stock rom, etc. etc.?
"treating us the way that they are"? Maybe you've forgotten that Google pulled the first ics update because of issues, and they already have 4.0.5 planned, ics is obviously having issues.
Don't get me wrong, i can definitely understand the frustration with no news about anything at all. I can see your reasoning for complaining to Sprint about that.
i dunno, I'm just curious as to why everyone is freaking out over it. imo they should be pestering Google to release the 4.0.4 source for us to fix some things in our roms, instead of bothering the carrier
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Pestering Google would be the more direct approach for sure. But they already got their money for these phones. Sprint on the other hand I am still paying and will continue to pay (if I don't move to another carrier). So Sprint seems to be the more logical source to complain to and maybe if enough people pester them, they will in turn force Google to be more transparent. Because as is, it looks like Google could give a ****.
Ah alright, that makes more sense to me now. Thanks for the response
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk
kyouko said:
I've been wondering this for a while.. when the ota update comes out, do you (as in everyone who's waiting for it) plan on using it?
Drop w/e custom ics rom you might have with performance tweaks, themes, status bar toggles, settings you'd never get in a stock rom, etc. etc.?
"treating us the way that they are"? Maybe you've forgotten that Google pulled the first ics update because of issues, and they already have 4.0.5 planned, ics is obviously having issues.
Don't get me wrong, i can definitely understand the frustration with no news about anything at all. I can see your reasoning for complaining to Sprint about that.
i dunno, I'm just curious as to why everyone is freaking out over it. imo they should be pestering Google to release the 4.0.4 source for us to fix some things in our roms, instead of bothering the carrier
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, I would never give up my mods & tweaks, etc....but I would love to have a stock rom with all those tweaks, mods, themes, kernels, etc. added on to it. IMHO, stock roms are almost always stable beasts! Honestly, at this point, I am doubting whether or not sprint even cares enough to let us know what's going on with the update. We're now over 2 months since the first official ota was pushed to nexus s and the devs here have already beaten the bloody hell out of sprint in releasing working roms, with brand new radios, bootloaders, and all. Granted, the bootloader & radio were ripped from a leaked rom, but still....we've got over a dozen working roms before the people who have full access to schematics, closed source code, etc. could even get one out.....and that's just plain sad!!
Has anyone gotten this OTA yet? I can't even find one person that has. It's making me think that it was a false leak, maybe that's already well known though...
patokeefe said:
Has anyone gotten this OTA yet? I can't even find one person that has. It's making me think that it was a false leak, maybe that's already well known though...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Umm.. Its called a leak because it was err.. leaked... It was an OTA update that wasn't released yet and still hasn't been. Doesn't make it a false leak, just means they still aren't ready to release it.
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk
Is he possibly talking about the leaked release date of the ota ics update, the one of the screenshot from a Sprint webpage showing Sprint saying the update will be released on February 16th???? I think he might have been asking if anyone got the ota update that this was showing. I personally think that it was a misprint and the update will be released on March 16th, as there is another leaked piece saying the NEXUS S update will be released in mid March.
KID ANDROID said:
Is he possibly talking about the leaked release date of the ota ics update, the one of the screenshot from a Sprint webpage showing Sprint saying the update will be released on February 16th???? I think he might have been asking if anyone got the ota update that this was showing. I personally think that it was a misprint and the update will be released on March 16th, as there is another leaked piece saying the NEXUS S update will be released in mid March.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly.
I should clarify, the substance of the leak-the date if the alleged OTA update-was false.
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk
Looks like Sprint is still sytematically deleting posts of their users and paying customers on their forum.
Go here and see before it is deleted: http://community.sprint.com/baw/thread/85388?start=0&tstart=0
"Nexus S 4g and ICS-where is it?
Why were these posts deleted? Why are you still trying to hide what is going on instead of answering my questions? There was nothing in these posts that was your content to delete. markie_b stated that posts that had Sprint property (screenshots) were deleted because of that, but why are these deleted?
POST 1
"@markie_b "the opportune word here is leaked which means someone is putting information out there before it is due and therefore Sprint has the right to delete any information"
Just because it was leaked does not make it any less true. There was a banner at the top of the page when Sprint employees logged into Dara and ISC. It was there for two days at least. Many different Sprint employees confirmed this as true. So deleting the screenshot and links to this image just makes it look like Sprint is trying to hide something. Which you are. Sprint messed up. Plain and simple. Maybe you guys should admit this and try to give us more information than just wait for ICS because we know nothing. We all know you and every other Sprint employee know nothing. You guys should work on changing that. Instead of hiding mistakes and staying silent on what is going on with an update, you should be proactive in letting us know every step of the process you are on in geting the update out. The source has been available for 3 months now, that is more than enough time to get the radios working. As I have said before we are all still paying Sprint for these phones. We deserve to be treated better. On a side note you should realize the Nexus is a developer phone. You are not dealing with your average Android phone users here. We will notice every single mistake you make and come looking for answers every time.
@aysdojo Why would you think it was an internal release? How many Sprint employees do you think still even own an NS4G? On top of that there is no system in place for Sprint to only push updates to Sprint employees. So how would they even accomplish an internal release?
@14knight So would you mind explaining why another post created by mattsholtz23 that asked why Sprint is advertising the Nexus S 4g as "OS updates as soon as humanly possible" were outright deleted and the member banned? There was no "leaked" information in that post. It was a simple question that was deleted instead of just being answered. It look like Sprints policy is to delete any post on here that makes them look bad. Instead of being up front and admitting when they do things wrong. A screen shot has been taken as proof of this post."
POST 2
"I must assume that you have trouble reading, as all proof needed was inside of last post. You must realize that you are asking for proof of things that do not exist, i.e. a way for Sprint to roll out releases only to employees all the while excluding every other NS4G owner on their network. This is like asking someone to prove that Santa Clause does not exist. The proof he does not exist is that no one has ever proven that he does exist. The same goes for Sprints secret employee OS upgrade system that you somehow beleive in. Like I said before, it would have been heard of by now through employee leaks, considering that the OP is about Sprint internal leaks this is something Sprint has a problem with. Also of note is that the one internal rollout you cited from Google had leaked screenshots of ICS (I guess you would have had to of read the article though) hitting Google+ and Twitter within hours of the actual rollout to employees. Further illustrating my point. I would also like to point out that I have answered your questions twice now with you still never answering my one question to you. Why do you believe this was an internal rollout? Any other post by you will be ignored as I must assume you are trolling and are hijacking the thread, considering your last 2 posts have not had a single fact in them and were all opinion, and that you never answered my one question to you. Now back to the real questions I would like to see answers to. I am still waiting Markie_B and 14Knight."
A screenshot has been taken as proof of this post, as have all my other posts."
And another one that was deleted:
"@dreamcat1138 You are correct. Not only does the NS4G have weak radio problems, but it is all Samsung devices that have signal issues. Samsung is notorious for using under powered radios inside of it's handsets. http://www.androidcentral.com/nexus-s-users-hows-your-wifi-strength http://www.androidcentral.com/are-you-having-radio-issues-your-nexus-s-4g-poll http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Google+Mobile/thread?tid=34ad876196cb21c4&hl=en http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Google+Mobile/thread?tid=72cde4a29b9021c3&hl=en http://forums.androidcentral.com/sp...e-wifi-radio-wifi-tethering-crashes-data.html Tweet from Engadget's Mobile editor - https://twitter.com/#!/zpower/status/15800092652998657 http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1714413 http://pocketnow.com/android/samsung-epic-4g-touch-hits-radio-problems-fix-promised http://pocketnow.com/android/epic-4g-touch-signal-loss-fix-coming-soon-user-leaks-it-early http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=24345 http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/21/...signal-problem-fix-coming-meter-being-changed Trust me I could go on. Basically all Samsung devices including the Nexus S 4G have horrible radios. Just look at some of the other posts in Sprints Nexus S forum. There are more than one post asking when the radios would be fixed on the NS4G, and they always have the same answer. It's in the next update. Yet with the last 3 update the NS4G recieved that were supposed to fix the radio issues, they never did. And now we are being told it will be in the ICS update. That is untrue as there is no fix for the radio ssues, it is a hardware issue, and the only fix for that is not buying a Samsung phone. Screenshots have been taken as proof of this post."
Here are even more that were deleted.
"Why was the screen shot and link to the image of the leak deleted? Why does Sprint feel that hiding their mess ups is gonna help? It is all over the web, we already know. Why don't you take the time to admit your mistakes and tell us what is going on, instead of deleting posts banning members and deleting pictures. Is this really Sprints stance, to hide facts and lie to it's paying customers? Every person on this Nexus board is still paying for their phones with their contracts. Why are we being treated this way? Screenshots have been taken as proof of this post."
"So you don't believe everything you read on the internet, yet you believe the rumor one guy (not a Sprint employee) posted on this forum that this was an internal rollout. As that one guy (techguy379) is the only and original source that this was an internal rollout, and looking at his other posts, he knows absolutely nothing about what Sprint is doing. Not to mention that if it was an internal rollout wouldn't the Sprint employees who leaked these screen shots have known that, as they are internal employees. I personally know for a fact that one of the screen shot leakers/posters was himself an NS4G owner, wouldn't it make sense that he would have been one of the internal testers, since he owned the phone the test was taking place on and was himself an internal employee of Sprint? The proof that Sprint or any other prvider has never done an internal rollout to test an OS on their employees is that we would have heard about it, on Twitter, Facebook, and XDA. Do you really think Sprint could control leaks from their 18 year old work force. Most companies can't even control leaks from their programers and coders. Come on. You also just proved yourself wrong, as Google is the only company that does internal rollouts of Android to test OS updates. Since they are the ones who make it. There has and never been a single reported case of a service provider (Sprint, Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile) ever internally testing an OS update on their work force, and that is because they don't. Really you are just making yourself look silly. I am sure Sprint can take care of defending themselves without your ill informed help."
*update* Looks like nexuss4glies was banned and most posts deleted.
Here is a full account of what is going on at Sprint's forums.
http://sprintlies.tumblr.com/
Here is a reddit link as well http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/pyaow/a_full_record_of_how_sprint_is_deleting_its_users/
Your sense of entitlement is ridiculous at this point.
These updates take time, there is a massive amount of testing that has to happen before you release an update that could potentially brick hundreds of thousands of phones in one day. When working with a wireless carrier they must also test to make sure the radio is working properly with the network as well, in a variety of environments and situations.
If any problem comes up during these tests it has to start over again, if google has decided that 4.0.5 needs to be developed before they can re-test it, it's up to them. Google has never once stated a release date for ICS on our phones, sprint had it on an internal website for employees only (which could be a fake shot), not out there for public consumption. It's likely they are testing it internally and still awaiting approval somewhere down the line.
Just calm down, or just install the leak if you are really truely that desperate. The OTA will come out in due time and you'll look back at this and wonder how you could be so unreasonable.
They are releasing it as fast as humanly possible. Humans make mistakes, bugs can sometimes regress and appear again. Humans are flawed, humans write flawed code. Would you rather have a broken update or one that's stable enough to roll out to everyone?
Google, Sprint, and AT&T could all handle this better with some actual communication. However, I don't think any of them are holding back ICS intentionally. They are obviously working out issues and when they feel it is ready, they will release it. I'm not sure what the original poster is trying to gain by this crusade.
bozzykid said:
Google, Sprint, and AT&T could all handle this better with some actual communication. However, I don't think any of them are holding back ICS intentionally. They are obviously working out issues and when they feel it is ready, they will release it. I'm not sure what the original poster is trying to gain by this crusade.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am trying to gain some transparency. I never stated that I thought ICS was being held back. But lets face it, there is no money in updating phones. The money is in selling them. I do believe that if more resources were put into development of updates it would result in faster updates. You would think this would be a priority for Google, at least with their flagship line of Nexus phones. Really, if this is what the "Nexus Experience" is supposed to be, then I am not on board. Second Sprint should have never sold this phone as a Nexus experience with "updates as soon as humanly possible" because the NS4G is not updated like the other GSM devices. Even Google has pulled CDMA Nexus's from it's Nexus developer page basically admitting that the update process works differently than the real (GSM) Nexus devices. I have a feeling this will all be happening again in a year when updates are needed for the Verizon and Sprint Galaxy Nexus.
My main goal is to draw attention to Sprint's and Google's mistakes as this whole process couldn't have been any more messed up. The more people that start criticizing these companies when they blatantly screw up the better off we will be in the long run. Staying silent for this long is just not the right way to be treating your customers. Especially when those customers are mainly the developers (Nexus devices are developer phones) who bolstered your OS to the number one OS in the world.
petrochemicals said:
My main goal is to draw attention to Sprint's and Google's mistakes as this whole process couldn't have been any more messed up. The more people that start criticizing these companies when they blatantly screw up the better off we will be in the long run. Staying silent for this long is just not the right way to be treating your customers. Especially when those customers are mainly the developers (Nexus devices are developer phones) who bolstered your OS to the number one OS in the world.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think creating a blog full of screenshots of you ranting at community managers (that have no sway or special information, or right to speak on sprint's behalf) is helping at all.
Explain what you think 'as fast as humanly possible' means in the context of a highly complex and sensitive phone software rollout. There is a lot that could go wrong and delay an update, you know the update is coming. You are not paying a monthly fee for updates to your phone, find me the line in your phone contract that says that. A line on a product's website isn't a contractually binding agreement, maybe false advertising. If you wanted to prove that however you'd need proof that google and sprint engineers weren't even working on porting the software, and we know they are.
IMHO this is a little silly. Why does it even matter at this point? Almost every single ROM that is developed or being developed is ICS. We already have it so why would we need ota?
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using xda premium
Bauxite said:
I don't think creating a blog full of screenshots of you ranting at community managers (that have no sway or special information, or right to speak on sprint's behalf) is helping at all.
Explain what you think 'as fast as humanly possible' means in the context of a highly complex and sensitive phone software rollout. There is a lot that could go wrong and delay an update, you know the update is coming. You are not paying a monthly fee for updates to your phone, find me the line in your phone contract that says that. A line on a product's website isn't a contractually binding agreement, maybe false advertising. If you wanted to prove that however you'd need proof that google and sprint engineers weren't even working on porting the software, and we know they are.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes it is false advertising. The Nexus S 4G was falsely advertised by Sprint to me and everyone else when purchasing it, as receiving "OS updates as soon as humanly possible". As for the definition I would consider it to be defined as the first time they released the OS back in December of last year. Google is to blame for making a shoddy OS that didn't work when it was released. If they would bother actually putting any real kind of money into the development and work force that does design these updates, then maybe it would have worked the first time they released it. But like I said before there is no money in updates, so the development of them will reflect that. Just like we have seen here.
Why you feel the need to protect billion dollar companies, I am not really sure. Any kind of company like these should be criticized constantly, otherwise they will walk all over us, just as they are in this situation. The bottom line is Sprint and Google have screwed up. The more attention that is drawn to that fact, the better. More transparency is needed in Sprint and Google's relationship with their customers and that is not going to be fixed by people like you that are making excuses for them.
petrochemicals said:
Google is to blame for making a shoddy OS that didn't work when it was released. If they would bother actually putting any real kind of money into the development and work force that does design these updates, then maybe it would have worked the first time they released it. But like I said before there is no money in updates, so the development of them will reflect that. Just like we have seen here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And you just lost the argument entirely. Android 4.0 was developed for one phone at the start, the Galaxy Nexus, they stated it would come to the Nexus S eventually. Your argument is that the software is crap because they haven't written the device drivers fast enough for you. You want them to release broken software because you are entitled to fast updates.
Apparently to you 'as fast as humanly possible' means something entirely different, where humans are perfect creatures that never make coding mistakes. And on the off chance that the code was perfect to start it still takes time to TEST, time that has paid off already because they would have released a buggy update.
You can't just hire more engineers and throw more money at something to make it go faster. You assume your monthly WIRELESS USAGE fees go towards software development for one of sprint's 20+ phones. They don't.
Get over your false entitlement, they don't owe you anything.
lol @ people getting angry over ICS not being released yet
.... clearly you didn't have an Epic 4g and have to wait from September to March of the next year for Gingerbread.... we have nothing to complain about here in the NS4g forums
Quite honestly, yes the wait sucks, but it'll be worth it to not have the same type of bugs as NS3G users on TMobile and other international carries are facing. I used OICS then went back to gingerbread in December and have been waiting until the official OTA because I know it'll be better than ANY of the roms we have yet! Yes Sprint sucks, but they're trying to protect us. Also, as aforementioned by snowmanwithahat, at least we aren't like Epic 4G users and waiting 6 months or the other countless people in 2 year contracts not even on GB. Plus, no other phone that isn't a Nexus S has gotten the OTA yet so until then I'm still happy. I will, however, be furious if any other Sprint phone gets it first... Just my 2 pennies...