Is this the reason Samsung phones don't get Android updates?

[momentoid]

The Samsung Secret - Why U.S. Galaxy S Phones run Android 2.1 Still - xda-developers

... Updates are usually broken into several types: critical updates, maintenance updates, and feature updates. Critical updates are usually free, maintenance updates have some maintenance fee associated with them, and feature updates are usually costly.

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....

Does this mean Samsung Epic will be stuck on Android 2.1?

 

[Rigmaster]

I doubt it will be stuck on 2.1 forever, but the update might cost you directly. I doubt Sprint or other carriers absorb these fees if they don't end up with exclusives on phones in exchange.

 

[CriticalCritic]

Does this mean Samsung Epic will be stuck on Android 2.1?

It means that there will be fewer and fewer and fewer people buying Samsung phones.

I wonder who needs to be sued in order to force them to inform people about this abnormal business practice?

 

[eieio]

No one can be sued for it.. maintenance is usually part of the contracts. Upgrade to a new OS is not..

There is no promise of future OS updates. only maintenance that is contracted between the Carrier and the vendor.

 

[RoboMonkey]

Samsung just put a nail in its own coffin. They are so FOS and exactly the reason I didn't buy a gTab, but I did buy my wife the Epic she wanted a 4g phone with keyboard.

 

[Nevikan]

I have been waiting to buy a phone and was picking between the Epic and the EVO. I think I just made my decision. The EVO

 

[CriticalCritic]

No one can be sued for it.. maintenance is usually part of the contracts. Upgrade to a new OS is not..

There is no promise of future OS updates. only maintenance that is contracted between the Carrier and the vendor.

I didn't suggest a suit over failure to update, I know that no suit can be brought for those practices that they are choosing to engage.

Rather, a suit for failure to provide notice that the industry standard is not being upheld by this company (and is therefore misleading to consumers seeking to purchase an Android product). Though I am unsure whether that would have to be brought against Samsung or against Sprint.

Typically a suit of this nature would hold little weight, due to the ability to just dump the product and go elsewhere. But considering the lasting contractual obligations that are attached... it may very well be a viable argument. Then again, maybe not... but I'd love to find out for sure!

Now that I think about it, I think it's probably not possible unless it can be found that they are actively trying to mislead the consumer.

 

[rambo47]

Nokia had similar issues with supporting North American phones. It cost them a ton of customers (me included) and made a mockery of their North American presence.

 

[Eazail70x7]

Apparently Samsung isn't charging any fees for the upgrade according to phone scoop. Samsung replied to them...

 

[momentoid]

Two tweets from Sprint:

Sprint & Samsung are working to release Froyo for Epic ASAP, but only after it meets rigorous testing criteria to ensure quality experience.

Epic 4G users: Froyo is still in the works. We’re working closely with @SamsungMobileUS to ensure the best possible customer experience.

 

[davo1224]

I used to think of quality when I thought of Samsung cell phones but their almost total disregard for their Android phones is appalling.

 

[MissJennell]

If you want 2.2 then put it on your phone yourself. It's pretty easy.

 

[davo1224]

Well we obviously know that. The point is that there's a large base of people out there who aren't even aware it's possible.

 

[MissJennell]

Well we obviously know that. The point is that there's a large base of people out there who aren't even aware it's possible.

Then that is their problem for not being an informed consumer.