Hi all
just a thought, after buying my XDA2i about a month ago I suddenly realize that the XDA2i is left without an upgrade to windows mobile 5.
While the blame should be shared between the hardware company and the Operating system company, I will refuse to buy another windows mobile 5. I would like to know how many would be interested in a petition by vowing not to buy a replacement product from the same hardware vendor.
The logic behind the petition is two fold.
1) make the Software company aware that releasing newer versions of the operating system require more co-operation and easier upgrade path for current hardware (within reason of system requirements)
2) make hardware vendors realize they will not profit from repeat customers unless they provide operating system upgrade or a trade in offer whereby creating a value to their current or soon to be discontinued line of products.
XDA2i hardware sepecifications are not at all subpar. there is no reason to replace a unit nor devalue it due to newer operating system release.
Ii've had:
casio m500->ipaq3890->dellx50->ipaq1940->dellx30->mpx200->XDA2i
largely my purchase reason is due to upgraded os.
I will opt to use my XDA2i and skip wm5 entirely. Won't even think of buying a wm5 and wait till wm6. at that point buy a pda/phone that is not from the same hardware vendor altogether.
anyone welcome to throw in their thoughts? Should a petition of this sort be created?
Regards,
Rob
dptechno.com
it's already been done and sent in ..still got negative response from company's
That petition is slightly different than the one i'm proposing.
I propose that anyone who signs the petition to:
-refuse to buy next/another version of O2 pocketpc phone
-refuse to buy any pocketpcphone with windows mobile 5
unless a windows moblie 5 upgrade is made available to the XDA's
as long as companies are profiting by discontinuing upgrade support of their pocketpcs, this issue will never be resolved until the operating system can be upgradable without hardware vendor intervention.
YES!
Am in on that with you Rhuie!!
Hi XDA-Samsung Users,
I've been a member of XDA since Jan last year. I went from owning a Nexus One to a Samsung Galaxy S i9000. The reason for the change was for the better specs and superior hardware of the Samsung Galaxy.
The phone is an incredible piece of machinery, but is severely hampered by the modifications that Samsung makes to the Android OS. I admit that the codec support within TouchWiz is impressive, but too much of the core framework of the phone is inefficient and sluggish.
Even using the latest release of unofficial firmware Samsung, Android 2.2.1 (JPY), there is still the occasional hang and the missing RAM (which is there somewhere, but not for user applications).
Samsung is mostly to blame, but there is also a quality control element that Google should be responsible for.
I have prepared an open letter that I sent to Android via Google Press and then forwarded on to Samsung for their reference. This were all through publicly available channels so will have to filter through customer service centers and the like.
I'm not expecting much, Google appears to use Amazon's customer service approach, "No customer service is good customer service".
But would like to post it here to hopefully get it out into the wilderness.
I tweeted it here http://twitter.com/#!/ibproud/status/27528781828722688
and would appreciate if you agreed with the content to retweet it. Hopefully it should give it a bit more weight.
It would be interesting to get the communities feedback on how mature they believe Android is.
Do they need to keep trying to make everyone happy or can they start to use the weight of their OS to get manufacturers to align the user experience?
Dear Android Team,
I am writing this letter to air my frustrations and to hopefully get some peace of mind that your strategy for Android will resolve some of the main issues plaguing the platform.
I have now been with Android for over 12 months. I used to be an iPhone user, but couldn’t stand the walled garden that Apple put me in. I couldn’t download directly to the phone, replace the messaging app or sync wirelessly. I went to Android because I wanted the freedom to use my phone more as a desktop replacement than as a phone/mp3 player.
When I joined the Android family (January 2010), I started with the Google Nexus One. I was so keen to get into the Android community I didn’t even wait for it to be on sale in Australia to get it, thus I hit eBay and bought it outright.
I was very pleased with the platform but could still see a few rough edges around the Operating System. It had the usability I was looking for but was lacking the polish I had grown use to with Apple. There was good news on the horizon with an Éclair update that would give the already beautiful phone a nudge in the right direction. As I was in Australia and the phone wasn’t here yet, I had to push the update through myself, after seeing how easy this was and getting the feeling of being a little phone hacker, I was hooked, I started preaching Android to the masses. Australia is still building momentum for the platform and it’s taking some time. Most of the major carriers stock between 4-6 Android devices, most of which are low end or outdated in the overseas markets.
I follow all the key players in the industry through Twitter and have a majority of Google News trackers picking up articles with android related words. I have also now converted my Wife to Android (HTC Desire Z, also not available in Aus) and I picked up the Samsung Galaxy S and gave my sister the Nexus One. The problem I face now is that I’ve run out of money and can’t go out and buy a new Android phone just to be up to date with the latest Android OS (Gingerbread), this would also be the case for most consumers. The Nexus S is so similar to my current hardware that I must be able to leverage the extra performance from the update.
But alas, we reach the major problem with the platform. Fragmentation. I’m not referring to the Fragmentation of the various app stores and apps available based on different OS versions but more to the Fragmentation of the OS based on the custom skins and manufacturer update cycles. The open platform that is closed at 2 levels, Manufactures and Carriers. I will continue to buy my phones outright as it gives me the freedom and flexibility to upgrade my plans as better ones become available. This always guarantees that I’m free from the bloatware that is preloaded on most Carrier bought phones and free from 1 of the barriers to the true AOSP experience. The next barrier is one that is running rampant in the interwebs rumour mill at the moment and that’s manufacturer updates and in my case I refer to Samsung.
Samsung Galaxy S phones come loaded with Android 2.1, most of them internationally are running Android 2.2 and just recently as select group of the devices is getting Android 2.2.1. This is now a month after Android 2.3 was released. For Samsung I would consider this largely negligent, considering they had the opportunity to work with Google to build a Google Experience Phone (Nexus S). The specs of this phone are so similar to the Galaxy range that a port shouldn’t be too difficult. I understand that there are a lot of constraints and dependencies in the development cycle that could cause delays as well as manufacturers agendas (mostly in unit sales). It is great that Samsung have sold so many devices globally but at a cost of the user experience as well as potential damages to long term retention.
I understand the Open nature of Android and the push to encourage manufacturers to put there own spin on the platform, but Android is getting bigger and more mature, it doesn’t need to be High school girl bending to the whims and peer pressure from the carriers and manufacturers.
There are a team of Devs in Germany who are working to port CyanogenMod 7 (Gingerbread) to Galaxy S i9000, but these guys have now spent over four months just trying to get through Samsungs drivers. The team didn’t start just to customise the phone but to actually make the phone work properly, I of course refer to the RFS lag issue and Samsungs modification to the framework that slowed it down. The goal of the team is to maximise the potential of the hardware and operating system.
It would be great to see some muscle from Google thrown into the mix, there doesn’t need to be requirements dictated, but maybe ethics encouraged.
There seems to be a few options here:
- Encourage device manufacturers to share their drivers, if it is too sensitive to share at least work with the community to help them do it themselves.
- Start to break down the way the platform is customised so that way the manufactures (Samsung/HTC/Motorola) skin the platform can sit a layer above the core code, thus be a quick implementation/customisation to get their skins working.
- Get each manufacturer to offer the AOSP experience to advanced users. This can be done through an agreement between the user and manufacture that states this will void the warranty and have its own terms and conditions.
- This last one is a long stretch, but how about taking all the manufacturers drivers into a repository, the way Windows do updates. When a new Android version is developed the drivers can be updated or incorporated and be packaged out through the Android SDK.
I may be completely off the mark. I’m not a developer and couldn’t pretend to know what effort is involved at any stage of the process, from building Android to rolling it out into the latest and greatest phone. The one thing I am though is an End User, a person that wants my phone to do more, to get close to being a desktop replacement.
Maybe I’m also being a bit idealistic.
I hope the Android platform continues to flourish and for it to become the Windows of the mobile era.
Sincerely,
Irwin Proud
E: [email protected]
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's really an excellent summary. Consider there're even more black sheeps out there. For example Sony Ericcson which ones recently made a statement like Android is their favourite Smartphone OS and left Symbian in Nokias hands.
But we found also the good ones like HTC, which every Manufacturer should have HTC as its Paragon concerning Android Software Development.
Great write-up; I agree 100%
I agree with your post fully, and concur that the Windows Phone 7 model for OS updates is more efficient, and strikes a happy medium between iOS and Android's approach to upgrades. However it is also more restrictive in terms of handset hardware limitations
I suppose the idea is that customers should vote with their wallets and buy from companies with good software and firmware support. The problem with that is a majority of phone users (android or otherwise) are technically savvy enough to take such support into consideration when looking at the latest and greatest fancy phone in a store. We could all buy the Nexus One or Nexus S only, but this too is restrictive to the customer as other phones offer more/different features
my 2 cents worth:
I agree on your points - but I'd skip the first few paragraphs if I were the one who write the letter. Other than that, thank you for making the effort.
What exactly are you hoping to achieve with this letter? Google has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that samsung don't want to update their phones. In these type of situations it's just better to vote with your wallet and buy another manufacturer's phone next time and let Samsung know why you don't want to use their phones in the future.
Writing letters like these is just a waste of time imho.
What Google should do?
Toss3 said:
What exactly are you hoping to achieve with this letter? Google has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that samsung don't want to update their phones. In these type of situations it's just better to vote with your wallet and buy another manufacturer's phone next time and let Samsung know why you don't want to use their phones in the future.
Writing letters like these is just a waste of time imho.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Please allow me to politely disagree. Google can do a lot about this and they have done this also. When I say they have done this - I am talking about not having Market application on Android OSes which come on non-phone hardware.
Google should put similar restrictions for loosley coupled skins, upgradable drivers. I had been giving this a lot of thought lately. I will sum up my thoughts with above letter as above:-
i) Device manufacturer skinning - Google should mandate that it should be just another APK within AOSP and users should be given a choice to turn it off.
ii) Device Drivers - Google should mandate there should be a better way of installing device drivers - similar to what we have in MS Windows (MS Windows is an excellent model of how hardware device should be handled - this lead to the exponential growth Windows is enjoying now).
iii) Android OS Update - If Google can achieve the above two, then the choice to upgrade the OS should be at user discretion. Of course, Google should mandate that there is OTA availble as an option. And obviously this OTA would be served by Google, not by device manufacturers. This would also free up time, effort and cash spent by device manufacturers in upgrading the OS.
So this is in the best of interest of everybody.
These restrictions if put in place, would free us all from this phenomena of running outdated OS.
Not sure what ti say on this one. It's true that Samsung has failed on some levels, however I must say that this is the first phone that has allowed me to get to know so much about the internals of the Android OS.
Modifying kernels, ROM's, reading about different file-systems etc... it's not a thing for the common user but I expect the people on this forum to be interested in such things.
Ok, if Samsung had done it right, we may have discussed these things anyway but it would've drawn less attention as people would not be looking for solutions to their problems.
But of course we have to strive to quality for everyone and this letter may just open some people's eyes at both Google and Samsung.
Thank you so far for the feedback.
poundesville said:
my 2 cents worth:
I agree on your points - but I'd skip the first few paragraphs if I were the one who write the letter. Other than that, thank you for making the effort.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Remember most members of XDA would be a cut above the average user. The reason this letter was written the way it was, was to demonstrate that I am a typical end user. Although I would consider myself leaning slightly to the more advanced side I wrote the letter based on a very general experience of the platform, an experience a lot of consumers would go through.
Toss3 said:
What exactly are you hoping to achieve with this letter? Google has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that samsung don't want to update their phones. In these type of situations it's just better to vote with your wallet and buy another manufacturer's phone next time and let Samsung know why you don't want to use their phones in the future.
Writing letters like these is just a waste of time imho.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What am I trying to achieve with this letter?
I really don’t know, but it helps to just get the thoughts out there.
With approximately 300,000 activations daily, I don’t think Android sees the true reflection of how their platform is received.
When the Galaxy range of phones was released in the US, they would have been seen as the closest thing to an iPhone that non-AT&T customers could get. So sales and activations shouldn’t be seen as the indicator of clever consumers or consumers wanting an open platform, but of consumers who wanted an iPhone but for the various reasons didn’t want to go with AT&T.
Remember: The international Samsung Galaxy is the only Android phone I know of that looks more like an iPhone than any other phone.
What I would really like to see is, that annually google will release a major version of Android. So V1, V2, V3, etc…. the mobile manufacturers commit to any minor or incremental updates per major version. So if Google says they are releasing Android 2.4 then they are saying to the manufacturer that this version will also work on any phone that currently supports v2.1 to v2.3.
As more and more people move to smartphones and tablets, more and more will we see hackers, spammers, botnets and so on attempt to access our devices. If we can’t have the latest updates that close any open holes then our phones become a huge liability.
Pierreken said:
Not sure what ti say on this one. It's true that Samsung has failed on some levels, however I must say that this is the first phone that has allowed me to get to know so much about the internals of the Android OS.
Modifying kernels, ROM's, reading about different file-systems etc... it's not a thing for the common user but I expect the people on this forum to be interested in such things.
Ok, if Samsung had done it right, we may have discussed these things anyway but it would've drawn less attention as people would not be looking for solutions to their problems.
But of course we have to strive to quality for everyone and this letter may just open some people's eyes at both Google and Samsung.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not really sure if Samsung has failed as such, but have put too much focus on unit sales rather than quality control and great user experience. They started releasing different iterations and modifications to the same phone without considering that each minor tweak to the hardware would mean more resources to develop updates and maintain each device.
I also agree that without Samsung I would know very little about linux filesystems, kernel and custom roms, but shouldn't all of these be more to push the phone above it's limits and not to just get it working properly?
There's nothing wrong with knowing the advanced stuff, however it shouldn't be a necessity.
The problem ironically is that Android is open source. I agree wit the letter above, but I can;t see how you can stop manufacturers doing what they want.
Also the Drivers being proprietary isn't going to change and device manufacturers aren't going to suddenly start releasing their closed driver sources.
Agreed Google should stand up and restrict the Skins to a single APK that can be removed, this would stop all the associated problems with HTC and Samsung skinning too deep in to the OS that it becomes impossible to remove it. The problem with that is, then any manufacturers APK will be installable on any phone. Which is something we know they don't want.
We already know Androids biggest downfall and so does Google. Fragmentation.
I believe once Google has the strong position they want and users demand Android when they buy a new phone, they will start to put their foot down and try to enforce standardisation across Manufacturers, but until they get to what they feel is that point, we're stuck.
Anyway much luck with the letter, I hope someone who matters get's to see it.
Logicalstep
Recently, there’s been a lot of misinformation in the press about Android and Google’s role in supporting the ecosystem. I’m writing in the spirit of transparency and in an attempt to set the record straight. The Android community has grown tremendously since the launch of the first Android device in October 2008, but throughout we’ve remained committed to fostering the development of an open platform for the mobile industry and beyond.
We don’t believe in a “one size fits all” solution. The Android platform has already spurred the development of hundreds of different types of devices – many of which were not originally contemplated when the platform was first created. What amazes me is that the even though the quantity and breadth of Android products being built has grown tremendously, it’s clear that quality and consistency continue to be top priorities. Miraculously, we are seeing the platform take on new use cases, features and form factors as it’s being introduced in new categories and regions while still remaining consistent and compatible for third party applications.
As always, device makers are free to modify Android to customize any range of features for Android devices. This enables device makers to support the unique and differentiating functionality of their products. If someone wishes to market a device as Android-compatible or include Google applications on the device, we do require the device to conform with some basic compatibility requirements. (After all, it would not be realistic to expect Google applications – or any applications for that matter – to operate flawlessly across incompatible devices). Our “anti-fragmentation” program has been in place since Android 1.0 and remains a priority for us to provide a great user experience for consumers and a consistent platform for developers. In fact, all of the founding members of the Open Handset Alliance agreed not to fragment Android when we first announced it in 2007. Our approach remains unchanged: there are no lock-downs or restrictions against customizing UIs. There are not, and never have been, any efforts to standardize the platform on any single chipset architecture.
Finally, we continue to be an open source platform and will continue releasing source code when it is ready. As I write this the Android team is still hard at work to bring all the new Honeycomb features to phones. As soon as this work is completed, we’ll publish the code. This temporary delay does not represent a change in strategy. We remain firmly committed to providing Android as an open source platform across many device types.
The volume and variety of Android devices in the market continues to exceed even our most optimistic expectations. We will continue to work toward an open and healthy ecosystem because we truly believe this is best for the industry and best for consumers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Source: http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2011/04/i-think-im-having-gene-amdahl-moment.html
In January, Canonical teased a version of the Ubuntu software for Galaxy Nexus smartphones would be released sometime in February.
The new operating system was announced just before CES, revealing Canonical's intent to bring the full range of desktop capabilities to compatible smartphones.
Canonical has primarily used the Galaxy Nexus as its test device thus far, and it wasn't that shocking to learn a developer version of Ubuntu would be handed out so soon.
However, the developer just revealed a version of Ubuntu for Nexus 4 would arrive with the Galaxy Nexus edition, which comes as a bit of a nice surprise.
Preview of promise
Set to arrive on Feb. 21, the touch developer preview of Ubuntu for both Nexus smartphones will provide images and open source code for more savvy users to mess around with while they wait for a completed version.
The idea is to give Ubuntu enthusiasts and developers a chance to see what the OS has to offer, and give an early lead on potential app creation for the smartphone software.
Canonical will also release tools to help users flash their existing devices to the developer preview, which would allow them to stay up to date with the most current version.
Attendees of Mobile World Congress can bring their Galaxy Nexus and Nexus 4 smartphones to the Canonical booth, where the developer will flash the devices themselves.
Additionally at MWC, Canonical will have a variety of Ubuntu devices on display (including a possible tablet), though the actual proprietary phones aren't expected to arrive until October.
"Our platform supports a wide range of screen sizes and resolutions. Developers who have experience bringing up phone environments will find it relatively easy to port Ubuntu to current handsets," said Canonical's Pat McGowan in a statement.
"We look forward to adding support for additional devices for everyday testing and experimentation."
The group has also created downloadable app design guidelines, giving potential developers the power to create for the full range of Ubuntu platforms.
Though iOS and Android have dominated the market thus far, there's plenty of room for a possible third option as Windows Phone 8 and BlackBerry 10 have yet to assert themselves in the marketplace.
Whether that OS is Ubutnu will largely depend on how quickly and easily users are able to assimilate the open source software.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2149705 No need for two threads
We are going to introduce several important members of Flyme. And the first issue of this series would be----- face to face Q&A with the System Development Manager --- Pony Chou.
Introduction:
Pony Chou, joined Meizu in 2007, is one of the key developers of Flyme. After several years of hardworking and brilliant performance, he became the Technical Director of Flyme in 2013. And this year, after a major department structure adjustment inside Flyme, he is appointed as the general manager of Flyme System Development.
(FF would be Flyme Forum)
FF: Hi Pony, thank you for your time to do this interview. I think most of our forum users are not that familiar with your work, can you briefly describe your work so that they can know a little more?
Pony: OK. Greetings to all Flyme Forum users. As you can see now I am the general manager of Flyme System Development, which means my main job is to make Flyme a better system, to lead the team --- actually we have several teams for different system modules --- to build a system that is more smooth, stable and power-saving.
FF: That sounds an incredibly complicated job. What part did you work on, when you first join Meizu?
Pony: Well, like everybody else, I started with the very basic work, coding, solving bugs... When I joined the project of Flyme, I was in charge of the multi-media part, like music, video, etc. And after 2 years I was shifted to do the system frameworks and apps, and after that I was appointed to supervise this whole Flyme project.
FF: As Flyme's technical director?
Pony: Yes.
FF: So, I got a few questions about Flyme that are concerned by our forum users. The first one would be when Flyme 5 is going to rollout Android 6?
Pony: The new models which will be released in 2016 will all built on Androd 6.
FF: And what about those models before 2016? Will Flyme provide an update?
Pony: I think for previous models, the main task for Flyme is to keep the firmware as stable and smooth as possible. Android 6 has not much modifications or highlights in functions. Some functions sucn as permission control, fingerprint, fast charge, etc are actually already acheived on Flyme 5. If we cannot upgrade to Android 6, we'll do our best to add more features to Flyme to compensate that.
FF: That's really exciting. Then when would Flyme 5 be available for models other than MX5 and PRO 5?
Pony: We actually have done it in Chinese mainland, but for global version, we need to do more testing for compatibility and performance. So please feel assured because Flyme 5 WILL be available for every device after MX4.
FF: So MX4 and MX4 Pro are also getting Flyme 5?
Pony: Yes. It might take longer time, but it will be available for these two models.
FF: As long as we are here, I think many users would have the same confusion as mine: why global version is always way too behind the Chinese version?
Pony: Flyme was not that internationalized before, but as we are getting more and more users around the globe, we have to consider more about users outside China. Thus for every version that is going to be released, we have to test the compatibility first. We got many feedbacks that some apps are not working properly on Flyme, that's the issue we're going to fix here. And also, we need time to translate the system languages.
FF: So will it still be several months gap between A and G versions?
Pony: There will be, but much closer. This year we're trying to release G version only 1 month later than A version.
FF: That's great. Our users will be delighted.
FF: There is another issue related to upgrading. What is the updating cycle for every device model?
Pony: You mean Flyme monthly or weekly firmware upgrading?
FF: No I mean after a model is released, how long will Flyme provide upgrade for each model?
Pony: Well, it is safe to say that we guarantee the updating for each model will at least last 24 months.
FF: So the models get upgrades in at least 2 years. What about the open source issue of Flyme? A lot of users were asking about that, will Flyme be open-sourced?
Pony: The kernel code will be released, but the Flyme part will not be open-sourced. We are an OS with system-level customization, it's not likely to open the source code.
FF: Flyme did adaptations for other brands, will we be doing that in the future?
Pony: Yes, on some popular devices such as Samsung, OnePlus, Mi or other brands.
FF: About the Flyme versions, what's the differences between A and G version, or IN version?
Pony: The system features are basically the same. What's different is the content provided in each version. Right now we have few multi-media content in G or IN version, but we are now contacting international content providers, try to bring more services to our users.
FF: Then compare to other smartphone operating systems, what do you think is the highlight of Flyme?
Pony: The first impression of most users is that Flyme is very light colored, and the visual design is nicer than most of the other operating systems. And for the perfomance, Flyme, especially Flyme 5 is really smooth and some users joked that it's so smooth it does not resemble any previous Meizu or Flyme product. And the features are easy to grasp, users can learn it instantly because the interactions are also very simple but effective.
FF: Thanks for your patient answers, one more, we know that Meizu will be having a launch event in India around April, will we be expecting your attendance?
Pony: I might. Maybe I can be a mysterious guest among all the fans.
FF: Great! Can you say something to our forum users?
Pony: Thanks for continually contributing to this forum and to Flyme. We'll listen to you, and cherish every feedback and suggestion. Flyme will be better! Thank you.
FF: Thank you, Pony.
Source: FlymeOS Forum
Are you a member of FlymeOS Forum or a member of meizu company?
From the interview I understand that all the devices before 2016 will not have Marshmallow!