Isn't Android supposed to be free? Not from Samsung.

[irishpride]

Here's an article from Android Australia explaining how Samsung is charging carriers for updates and that is the reason that we have not seen the 2.2 hit most of the Galaxy S line of phones. Kind of messed up if you ask me.

Samsung insider tells the world how Android updates through Carriers work | Ausdroid

 

[Frisco]

Here's an article from Android Australia explaining how Samsung is charging carriers for updates and that is the reason that we have not seen the 2.2 hit most of the Galaxy S line of phones. Kind of messed up if you ask me.

Samsung insider tells the world how Android updates through Carriers work | Ausdroid

Very interesting, and plausible. Somewhat tempered, though, by, "a person who claims to be a Samsung insider."

 

[nitsuj17]

Yeah this article is being discussed in another thread....and my thoughts are that i dou t updates wouldn't have been worked out in the contracts with the carriers already

 

[davidnmegan6907]

Yeah this article is being discussed in another thread....and my thoughts are that i dou t updates wouldn't have been worked out in the contracts with the carriers already

Yea it was, I looked for it to link it in here to be merged together but either I'm over looking it or it was moved. But anyways I think its all opinion. There is nothing that makes it look to be truely from an insider. To say that the phones will not receive froyo or higher is verizon and samsung saying we are open to a class action lawsuit, and I don't see that happening.

 

[historyteacher]

I think a class action suite has been filed against Samsung and T-Mobile over the FROYO upgrade or should I say lack of an upgrade on the T-Mobile version of the Galaxy-S phone.

 

[reinbeau]

Actually it doesn't make any sense, why would 'carriers' pay for some areas but not for others? You mean to tell me Rogers paid and AT&T won't? Does not compute.

 

[HeatherrSuicide]

Unfortunately, this makes sense. And, even more unfortunately, it's legal. Google never released a statement that says "Every single Android phone must be given the newest Android update ASAP." Luckily for us, we do have the opportunity to root our phones. And, as much as I hate doing that to a phone that was perfectly good from day 1, it's what I'd recommend for Galaxy S owners.

 

[bbrosen]

free? really? Nothing in life is free. why does everyone think things should be free, especially the younger generation, I'm 45, it seems todays kids think most things should be free for some odd reason.

 

[MJM128]

free? really? Nothing in life is free. why does everyone think things should be free, especially the younger generation, I'm 45, it seems todays kids think most things should be free for some odd reason.

Should we charge you for the air you breath? Or the comment you just posted? Since you seem to be so willing to pay for things. When you buy a phone for $200, and sign up for a 2year contract, you expect some customer service and support, along with a working device. You really don't think that updates should be included with that? That, manufactures shouldn't try and extort the system and get as much as possible out of it, even at the detriment of the customers.

 

[lordofthereef]

Just thought I would clear things up here...

First of all, my understanding about the class action lawsuite against samsung galaxy-S TMO phones is that a "timely update" was not provided. How that is defined will remain to be seen (by my eyes anyway).

The android OS is free. And yes, you can actually download it, for free. Once a company makes changes to the ROM (which they all do), they can probably very legally claim that you should have to pay for it. Is this moral? certainly not. Is it legal? I bet so. If asked, they will just say your are paying for Touchwiz, Sense, Blur, etc.

Also, as has been mentioned above, I don't believe any company can be forced to provide updates. If they do state that they will be providing updates, that is one thing, but just because other phone have a newer version of Android doesn;t mean that your phone will be getting it... ever.

 

[snoopy104]

free? really? Nothing in life is free. why does everyone think things should be free, especially the younger generation, I'm 45, it seems todays kids think most things should be free for some odd reason.

For the fact that Android is open source, which is the beauty of it. Open source means that it is developed and scrutinized by thousands of people worldwide to make sure the software is transparent and freely available to all. By people who believe in a sense of community and sharing their free time for the greater good. Think of it as flipping the middle finger at the greedy money grabbing corporations who write a piece of software and charge the earth for the privilege of owning it.

Open source means that you have a direct say over how your software works, you are actively encouraged to contribute and make changes and submit it for the whole world to see/benefit from if you so wish.

 

[lordofthereef]

Should we charge you for the air you breath? No, but neither you, nor anyone else for that matter, is producing the air I breath. Or the comment you just posted? You certainly could, if I was made aware for the charges beforehand. Believe me, I wouldn't have posted in that case, which is also how a free market works. If people don't want to pay they won't , and they will remember not to buy from said manufacturer again. Since you seem to be so willing to pay for things. When you buy a phone for $200, and sign up for a 2year contract, you expect some customer service and support, along with a working device. If the device was working fine when you got it, you are paying for what you got at that time. If it was defective, you deserve an exchange or refund because it was defective. Updates are not implied when you purchase that product in any way. Buy a computer with windows 7 on it. The following Windows will not be a free upgrade, I guarantee it. You really don't think that updates should be included with that? That, manufactures shouldn't try and extort the system and get as much as possible out of it, even at the detriment of the customers. Again, free market. There are PLENTY of manufacturers that push free updates. Let these other guys charge for them and fall flat on their faces because nobody is going back and buying their products.

Just as an anecdote, but does anyone remember buying a GPS 5+ years ago? Yearly map pack updates cost upwards of $70 at the time. Could we sue for this? Of course not! What do they do now? Offer them for free for the lifetime of the unit... because competition has deemed it necessary. Do you really need those updates? Most likely not. But it makes the consumer feel like they are getting a whole lot more.

 

[davidnmegan6907]

Yea it was, I looked for it to link it in here to be merged together but either I'm over looking it or it was moved. But anyways I think its all opinion. There is nothing that makes it look to be truely from an insider. To say that the phones will not receive froyo or higher is verizon and samsung saying we are open to a class action lawsuit, and I don't see that happening.

When I made this statement I forgot to add the part that I didnt mean a class action lawsuit over the lack of froyo because "the consumer wants it". I'm talking a class action lawsuit because consumers bought car docks that require froyo to work..

 

[HeatherrSuicide]

free? really? Nothing in life is free. why does everyone think things should be free, especially the younger generation, I'm 45, it seems todays kids think most things should be free for some odd reason.

You know, I almost agreed with your post a little bit.

Almost.

Your attitude towards the younger generation is what concerns me the most. Have they been throwing rocks at your cars? Leaving mysterious paper bags on your doorstep? Does your doorbell ring at all hours of the night? No? Then get off our backs. There are plenty of people over the age of 30 (and even over the age of 45, actually) that think everything in life should be handed to them on a silver platter. As a matter of fact, if you were to mingle with a few of us once in a while, you'd probably find that the majority of "kids" from 17 to 25 have jobs. They pay for their own education, groceries, and bills. They have car payments. They don't expect things to just come from nowhere, although we'll agree that it would be nice. Of course, I'm sure you'd agree that it would be nice if it were possible, wouldn't you?

(I'm done ranting. I'm just gonna go sit in my time out chair now.)

 

[EarlyMon]

In F/OSS, it's free as in speech, not free as in beer.

Plenty of companies charge for distributions, such as RedHat.

This, if true, is between Samsung and carriers at this point.

Until confirmed, there's not much to worry about independently.

Not getting a righteous update is matter for concern, but this rumor is at odds with the one where Samsung and the carriers were happy with the upgrade but holding it back to drive new phone sales.

Somebuddy square me away if I'm looking at this wrong.

 

[suXor]

I can tell you that this is very unlikely. The only time this would be possible is under a special agreement where the cost of the device was deeply discounted and therefore the support for it would be tiered. The other aspect is the OTA portion. A carrier may have struck a deal for hosting and support the OTA solution.

The data in that post wasn't clear enough to discern this.

 

[reinbeau]

Here's more fuel for the fire. This stuff is spreading all over the internet.

 

[davidnmegan6907]

Here's more fuel for the fire. This stuff is spreading all over the internet.

isn't that basically same thing as op?

 

[reinbeau]

isn't that basically same thing as op?

Yes, my point is it's not just from Australia, more articles are coming out about it. Sooner or later someone will have to pay attention, as the press gets worse and worse.

 

[davidnmegan6907]

Yes, my point is it's not just from Australia, more articles are coming out about it. Sooner or later someone will have to pay attention, as the press gets worse and worse.

My bad I see what it was someone in my device thread posted exact same thread as you did sorry for confusion..

 

[Guamguy]

Here's an article from Android Australia explaining how Samsung is charging carriers for updates and that is the reason that we have not seen the 2.2 hit most of the Galaxy S line of phones. Kind of messed up if you ask me.

Samsung insider tells the world how Android updates through Carriers work | Ausdroid

Doesn 't explain this:


Android 2.2 Froyo Upgrade for U.S. Cellular Samsung Acclaim Available Now - Softpedia

So why are Samsung Acclaims with US Cellular upgrading to Froyo? Smaller carriers like US Cellular are not in the position to hand out cash to Samsung to pay for updates.

For that matter, for all the small carriers all over Asia---In India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Philippines, Hong Kong---who are the most to ill afford paying for updates---yet got the updates, and got them since last year. As a matter of fact, Samsung announced the updates and they were by country and region as in "India" not "Tata Docomo" only.

Who could have paid for the updates on unbranded, unlocked Samsung Galaxy i9000?

When I brought in my unlocked Galaxy S i9000 to a Samsung service center (Kies refused to upgrade it), the upgrade was free of charge and it had the prepaid SIM from a carrier that didn't even carry the Galaxy S.