
Why U.S. Galaxy S Phones run Android 2.1 - spidaman
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=913045
======
icarus_drowning
As an Android user (and promoter to my friends/family), I'm starting to get
worried about Google's approach to the product. Not because of "fragmentation"
(which to me is an argument that essentially says "Android isn't going to ever
be successful because its too successful now"), but because of the lack of
attention it seems to be getting _from Google_.

It isn't just the OS itself-- several of Google's own apps are getting buggier
and buggier. Voice worked fine when I first got my Droid a year or so ago, but
has had a lot of bugs-- including dialing random numbers instead of the one I
wanted. (Just yesterday, I tried to send a text message to XXX-XXXX and it
truncated the last digit of the first group and complained that it couldn't
send a text to XX-XXXX. Nothing I did could stop it from doing this except
using the web-based version). Google Listen has stopped refreshing for huge
numbers of people, and my wife's new Galaxy S won't even accept subscriptions.
Not a word from Google on either issue, even though both show up in searches
for the problem.

I had to install Launcher Pro to get any kind of performance out of my Droid,
and even then it occasionally locks up on the home screen. Sometimes calls
come in and the touch interface freezes, which means that I can't answer the
phone. The Droid also will occasionally decide that there is no data
connection when it has full 3G service according to the indicators.

I don't use it, but the stock SMS app has apparently has its own problems
too-- at least Google has acknowledged those and is working on a fix, but as a
whole, Android has gone from less technologically interesting (no wi-fi
hotspots, etc) and stable to exciting and really buggy. Combine that with this
kind of politicking, and I'm getting less and less enthusiastic about Android
every day.

~~~
EnigmaCurry
To be fair, Listen isn't an official google project, it's a 20% project, and
the devs that started it probably just got bored with it, and/or busy.

[http://groups.google.com/group/listen-
discuss/browse_thread/...](http://groups.google.com/group/listen-
discuss/browse_thread/thread/25dd76e88b506098/002c1d3a15eea7d9?lnk=raot)

~~~
henriklied
I don't think that's relevant. Most Android users have no idea it's a 20%
project. It's an app that's available on their phones.

~~~
e40
Agreed! I hate it when people pull out this excuse. If google is going to
offer a basic app/service on their phone, they should be behind it. Period.

I ended up buy DoggCatcher and I'm pretty happy with it. The UI is a little
clunky and confusing at times, but it gets the job done and has the features I
need. And, it works in all the areas that it should. It was $6.99 and I can
say it was the best purchase for my phone.

[I am not affiliated with them in any way.]

------
yock
This might be plausible, but it can't possibly be confirmed which makes it no
better than speculation. I'm as frustrated as the next guy that my Captivate
is still running Eclair, but stuff like this doesn't really get us any closer
to a solution.

When both carrier and manufacturer neglect to offer explanation or
consideration for their collective failure to deliver, they must collectively
be held responsible. This means switching carriers when possible and buying
from different handset manufacturers. This approach has teeth, but only in
large numbers. That's why it's so important to set this silliness aside and
focus on real and tangible things the average consumer can do. Focusing on
fantastical stories of employees clandestinely posting anonomyous accounts of
shady contract terms makes for great drama, but still leaves us without
resolution. And quite honestly if it took this story to urge you to action
then you weren't all that disappointed in AT&T and Samsung's failure in the
first place.

~~~
Zaak
Summaries of Android upgrades by manufacturer and carrier:

<http://blogs.computerworld.com/17649/android_upgrades>

[http://blogs.computerworld.com/17650/android_upgrades_carrie...](http://blogs.computerworld.com/17650/android_upgrades_carriers)

tl;dr, Your best bet for upgrades is a high-end HTC phone on Verizon. If you
go with Samsung or AT&T, you're out of luck.

~~~
samstokes
Surely your _best_ bet is an unlocked phone running vanilla Android, rather
than any carrier-customised variant? Every carrier customisation has to be
ported to the new version each time the OS gets upgraded.

~~~
Zaak
I agree. Though the only unlocked vanilla android phones I know of are the
ones from Google. Good devices, but limited selection.

------
marshray
Gee, I'd kind of liked Samsung because they seemed to focus on delivering good
technology at a good price. I'd figured they perceived themselves as something
of an underdog in the past (perhaps relative to the Japanese tech industry).

This makes it seem like they're hiring Marketers and MBAs who think the best
plan is to try to squeeze as much as they can out of their contract customers
(the cell carriers) rather than put as much Samsung awesomeness as possible
into the hands of actual happy users. Short-term thinking never gets old.

Maybe it's time to look at HTC.

~~~
kenjackson
In fairness to Samsung they do incur non-trivial cost doing this.

Imagine this situation Verizon says, "Our Samsung Galaxy S phone must get 2.2"
while Sprint says, "No need". Should Sprint have to pay for what Verizon is
getting?

The issue is that you're going to pay, whether its Samsung or HTC. Some
companies will build the price into the phone, others will price it in some
other way (or some companies could eat the cost -- but that's probably not
sustainable).

Charging directly to the end user seems like the best way to do it. If I want
2.2, then I should pay for it, and if I'm happy with 2.1 why should I pay for
other people to get 2.2? But short of that, charging the carriers makes sense.

~~~
jsz0
The biggest downside I see is that it will shackle Google's ability to move
the platform forward. For example 2.3 is reported to include some major
improvements for low latency audio. As a game developer how do you handle
this? Just ignore this 2.3-only feature and target 2.1? Or do you build a 2.1
and 2.3 version? 2.2? 3.0? 3.1? Unfortunately we're talking about these phones
being around for another 2-3 years at minimum so realistically you might be
asking a developer to support 2.1 3 years from now? That's going to be a
really tough sell. The other issue is security. Leaving all those old versions
out there with little or no post-release updating is just begging for trouble.
(and let's not forget about bug fixes -- no one wants to suffer 2 years
working around an annoying bug. They simply won't buy another Android phone
after a bad experience like that)

------
pieter
It's interesting how this works in the Dutch market: the Galaxy S phones
aren't carrier-branded here (they're all called Galaxy S). On phone sites, you
can select the phone first, and then choose for a contract from any of the 3
main carriers. It also means that when Samsung ships an update, you can use
that update for your phone, whichever carrier you're on.

Samsung released Froyo in November, and you can install it on any Galaxy S
phone bought here. The update isn't over the air though; you have to connect
your phone to your pc, and which auto-updates it. In any case, the carriers
have nothing to do with this update so any delays are purely Samsung's fault.

------
teye
I've been planning to give up my iPhone for a 4G VZW Android, but it's easy to
take a direct update channel for granted.

 _So, iOS 4 has 90 percent share amongst iOS device owners. What about Android
2.3? 0.4 percent, as of a couple weeks ago. Yes, that’s zero point four
percent.

But for the sake of this being slightly more fair, let’s compare iOS 4 to
Android 2.2 — an OS which came out well before iOS 4. The adoption rate there?
51.8 percent. That’s still pretty pathetic._

<http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/17/ios-android-breakdown/>

------
ericz
This is rather heinous. A fee is definitely understandable but a per-device
fee is really outrageous. I don't know how carriers were willing to agree in
the first place. If they collectively bargained against this before even
carrying the phone they probably would've had much more luck.

Although I'm sure Samsung has every right to charge however much they want,
perhaps Google could step in and remind them that if they Samsung wants to be
greedy they can always use Bada

------
fakespastic
I own an Evo 4G (Android 2.2) and my wife owns an Epic 4G (2.1). I have
noticed no difference in their usability at all, aside from a few hardware-
specific quirks. I'm somewhat indifferent to the Android dot-releases, and am
not seeing much in Gingerbread that I care too much about, either, aside from
the improved task management.

------
mtarnovan
This is a very unhealthy trend for Android. Development will be much more
costly and difficult if the user base is split across many different API
levels. This article contains some insight (if you can get past the bs
title...): <http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/17/ios-android-breakdown/>

------
jorgem
Impromptu poll: Who really thinks a diatribe like this from TechCrunch can
make Google or their carriers do anything different?

------
rufugee
Just bought a Vibrant last week. After all the reported issues...I'm on the
fence on whether to return it. It's a beautiful phone and _seems_ faster than
my Droid 2...even running Eclair. Still, the GPS is weak to non-existent at
times, and although I can upgrade the phone myself I'd rather have an official
version. Ugh.

------
spidaman
Some galaxy S handsets have Froyo (see
[http://pages.samsung.com/ca/froyo/English/?pid=ca_home_subba...](http://pages.samsung.com/ca/froyo/English/?pid=ca_home_subbanner2_froyo_011111))
others don't, like my Epic 4g. Is it really politics or QA challenges; no
official word has been forthcoming.

~~~
yock
Your link is to the Canadian site for phones configured for Canadian carriers.
Not to be pedantic, but the content of the link is specific to the business
practices of US carriers.

~~~
oiuhjyftgrdgh
You mean we are being screwed over LESS than the US for a cellphone?

Oh damn - here comes the apocalypse, lions lying down with lambs, rivers of
blood, oceans of fire - Canadians getting good deals on a cellphone.

------
rbanffy
Sadly, this doesn't explain why my Cliq XT (called Quench down here) will be
forever stuck with 1.5.

At least until I decide to crack it and do the upgrade myself. As soon as I
find a 1.6+ or 2.x image that pleases me.

------
periferral
this seems to make very little sense. most of the custom ROMs out there are
based on Samsung's leaked 2.2 ROMs. If Samsung really didn't want to send out
official updates for 2.2 they could stop the leaks and would kill XDA updates.

Also judging by the updates trickling in, there is still a lot of work being
put in by Samsung to makes these ROMs stable. Almost every leaked ROM has
issues. lag fixes and gps fixes on XDA seem to be the norm to work around them

------
tworats
If this turns out to be true Samsung just lost a customer for life. This is
just plain stupid, short sighted thinking.

------
ralphc
This doesn't bode well for my Galaxy Tab running Froyo, hoping for Gingerbread
and Honeycomb one day.

------
old-gregg
Somewhat related: how/when do we get Gingerbread on Nexus One?

------
ergo98
The conflicting interests issue is really a problem in the Android space. As
has been shown time and time again, vendors really don't want the burden of
keeping your handset up to date forever because there is nothing in it for
them, aside from perhaps avoiding too much negative press.

Naturally people are going to compare it to iOS, where updates are free and
rapidly disseminated. The difference there is that there definitely _is_
something in it for Apple -- they're getting a cut of every app you buy, every
song you download, etc. They're a middleman, so it's just a cost of doing
business.

I wish we could get to a point where Android updates cost money. I would
happily pay $30 or whatever for each major update if it motivated the vendor
to have an interest in keeping it up to date.

~~~
drivebyacct2
> As has been shown time and time again, vendors really don't want the burden
> of keeping your handset up to date forever because there is nothing in it
> for them, aside from perhaps avoiding too much negative press.

Then stop locking the bootloader and let me put the latest version of CM on my
phone. I'm not going to buy Motorola and I'm not going to buy Samsung. Samsung
won't release their kernel modifications for Froyo which are needed by the CM
team to get CM7 running on the Galaxy S devices... Motorola is keeping the
bootloader (and thus kernel) on their phones restricted. They're also not even
close to timely on their updates. My D1 is running Gingerbread fairly stably,
especially considering it's ONE maintainer disappeared two weeks ago due to
personal financial concerns. OTOH, only one device is running GB from the
manufacturer/carrier and that is Google's own phone.

Let me use my damn phone, I'll take care of the updates. I don't know how much
simpler we can make installing CM7 and I know there are some/many/random-
number people who have gone CM just to get the latest Android version.

~~~
joeyo

      > Samsung won't release their kernel modifications for
      > Froyo which are needed by the CM team to get CM7 running
      > on the Galaxy S devices
    

Isn't this a violation of the GPL?

~~~
wmf
Not if it's a driver.

~~~
krakensden
You mean, not if it's a driver with a GPL-compatible shim (a la nVidia).

------
Charuru
Great info, but in the back of my mind I'm thinking that this sort of leak
really puts the pressure on Samsung and is highly advantageous to the
carriers.

