Please post here when you receive ics ota

[cryoaura]

Unless of course it IS fully tested and releasable by LG. It very well could be that it's Verizon holding this mess up, which would mean, the company could care less about if a phone with their tested version was in the public. He is a verified seller, paypal. If you were to buy from him, and it wasn't the item that was described, you could file a claim, and you would certainly get the money. Either way it doesn't mean anything, the auction is ended. The person's original post wasn't really any sort of "buy this now" post, it was an informative post bringing it up as a slight glimmer of hope to those of us who would really like to see ICS soon. I'll bank on that it's legit, based on the circumstances, and hope that we will see something soon!

 

[MrB206]

I get what you're saying... If we believe the post, ICS is available for the spectrum at LG. That's not anything we don't already know... Neph has posted the cab link on more than one occasion, but we don't know it's past beta and ready for release.

Who knows what to really believe. LG and vz contradict themselves with each customer interaction.

 

[badrsj]

If I recall correctly there was a minor number of people whose phones got the leak right and did not have disabling problems, maybe its one of those or maybe he did work for OEM whatever that is anyone wanna message him on the bay see if he can still pull this rabbit outta LGs hat?

 

[death2all110]

I learned long ago to not believe everything people post on ebay and the Internet. I HIGHLY doubt he has a legitimate version of ICS on that phone; its possible, but unwise if true. If he worked for LG and is selling a phone with an unreleased version of an OS, he could be in big trouble with LG because of the non-disclosure agreements they all use. The only exception would be a non-employee beta tester, but even they are held to non-disclosure agreements until a product is released (I beta tested for LG before, so I speak from experience).

I work for a tech company and if I quit and sold a phone with an unreleased os, you best believe I'd be sued by them. Maybe it's legit, but I certainly wouldn't buy it... A test phone isn't meant to be released to the public before official launch and a guy that installs an unreleased os on his own is probably breaking company policy. If word got to LG, they *could* flag it as stolen property.

This! Exactly. I work for a retailer in their computer repair area. We have tools that we use, and can technically keep on a flash drive for use on the PCs in store when other drives are in use plus for onsites. Now, if I was to use this for personal use/distribute the files/etc...I face dismissal. Its tracked by an order system and 'phones home'. If an illegitimate order number/name is used that does not match up. Its flagged in the system. The only reason it 'phones home' is for updates to said tool and pre/post service reports. And being in my position I also catch wind of some things coming, but am not allowed to disclose until its been made public. Any use/disclosure without permission would be in violation of the NDA that I signed when said company agreed to hire me and I can be fired and/or sued. LG if they so choose can go after him.

 

[MrB206]

Yessir. I get to see all kinds of new tech and os stuff but I can't talk about it outside the office (and in some cases not even there to those in other divisions) and damn sure can't give away/sell demo and beta stuff we're given. That stuff is tracked and companies that are strict with security know when NDAs are violated and believe me, the weight of a fortune 100 company legal department is heavy on the offender.

I'd love to be wrong and have this be an ICS validated by lg for release (waiting for vz to get their shit together), but given what we've all heard/seen, I just don't think that's the case yet.

 

[death2all110]

Yep, as an employee of the retailer and working in their tech dept, reps from major brands/manufacturers come in and give us free stuff for use on our PCs like software. Its linked to a certain license key which was somehow salted with our employee ID of the retailer. Without the correct employee ID and license key combo, its denied. Plus strictly locked to one use. We also get other nice incentives from the reps sometimes... But again, If I was to open my mouth about some stuff like the beta apps and crap, I'd feel the force of a fortune 500 company's legal dept coming down on me. So no thanks. xD

As cool as the stuff I see is, I refuse to open my mouth.

 

[blueracer90]

I talked to LG support today and this is the answer that I got from them. Seems like he was suggesting VZ hasn't asked for it yet.

 

[nickg2]

I talked to LG support today and this is the answer that I got from them. Seems like he was suggesting VZ hasn't asked for it yet.

time for VZW to sh!t or get off the pot....quit jackin' us around for pete's sake!!!

 

[zoomup627]

Dear zoomup627,

sorry, I would have except I wasn't rooted and didn't have access to the file, it was loaded for me



This is the message I got from the ebay seller.
I think it is true, and not a leaked version.

LG's service center I believe is in Texas where the seller lives..

What are your thoughts on this..?
It is already late September and there is still no news on the update.
wow..

 

[quadlupi]

This is quote from an email Verizon support sent me today. Everyone should stop bitching in this forum. It's called "Please post here when you receive ics ota", not "complain about it when you don't get ics ota"


You are exactly correct; your LG Spectrum is capable of receiving the Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich update. I apologize for any inconvenience you have experienced. Verizon Wireless approves the update that is pushed through to your phone, but does not manage nor design the software. We want to ensure the software that is being sent to our customers is free of errors and works properly. At the moment, we are in the final stages of approving the software for your phone. I don

 

[bones420la]

Everyone should stop bitching in this forum. It's called "Please post here when you receive ics ota", not "complain about it when you don't get ics ota"

well.. also this thread was started months ago.. around the time verizon was selling these phones with promises of a update... thats the only reason i got mine.. if they werent so slow with getting the update to us 99.9% of the posts in this thread wouldnt even be here...

 

[admn81]

This is quote from an email Verizon support sent me today. Everyone should stop bitching in this forum. It's called "Please post here when you receive ics ota", not "complain about it when you don't get ics ota"


You are exactly correct; your LG Spectrum is capable of receiving the Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich update. I apologize for any inconvenience you have experienced. Verizon Wireless approves the update that is pushed through to your phone, but does not manage nor design the software. We want to ensure the software that is being sent to our customers is free of errors and works properly. At the moment, we are in the final stages of approving the software for your phone. I don’t have an estimated date in which this will be released, but can assure you your phone will get the software.

Okay guys just felt that I had to comment on this...At first when everyone began to bitch and moan I was found it kind of childish, and lacking perspective to complain about this, but the longer it takes, the more I begin to side with those people.

Look, lets say we(VZW customers) are late paying our bill, what happens??? We get charged a late fee, receive calls inquiring about our payments, all the way up to being turned over to a collection agency. So what happens when VZW is late? Obviously the roles are reversed, but we are stuck waiting with no legitimate information or even half ass attempt to provide us with any details about one of the main selling points that was used on us customers as a premise to purchase this device. Yes, I still realize its just a phone and not any real critical issue in the big scheme of things, but I'm still annoyed.

 

[MrB206]

But again, you agreed to pay monthly, verizon never agreed to update you to ics in your contract/agreement.

I get what you're saying, but let's not feed the angry trolls with ideas.

 

[Lightswarm]

But again, you agreed to pay monthly, verizon never agreed to update you to ics in your contract/agreement.

I get what you're saying, but let's not feed the angry trolls with ideas.

If you could get a dollar for every time you've said that.

 

[scary alien]

Hey guys, just popping-in here real quick.

Sorry your ICS OTA has not yet arrived for your device yet...I know how you feel as a VZW customer who waited (in early 2010) for what seemed like an eternity for our what we thought was a long-promised 2.1 (Eclair) update to our HTC Droid Eris. Well, we finally did get 2.1 and a few very unexpected minor updates much, much later.

There's no telling what machinations go on in the depths of our carriers and manufacturers that decide and determine when and if an update will become available for what is now an astonishing array of devices.

But we do appreciate your respectful posting and patience here at AF, so please keep things on an even keel and avoid the use of the "T" word (FYI, that would be "troll").

Cheers and thanks!

 

[stef7]

MrB206 wrote:
"...But again, you agreed to pay monthly, verizon never agreed to update you to ics in your contract/agreement."

That may be true but that argument is imaterial here.

The material issue is VZW and LG (on more than one occasion) released press releases (initially before the device was even made available for purchase, then one time in May) that advertised a key feature for the phone in a specific timeframe. In those releases, they did not indicate "capability to run" but "will receive".

Because it influenced purchasing decisions and because it had an impact on customers assessing value for the device (and because it only was available on one carrier) the carrier's service to the customer, where there were alternates in both devices and carriers for the consumer, this act is material and fraudulent.

It is an illegal business practice in the United States. :ridinghorse:
I'm not a troll even if my kids think so.

 

[TheBigKahuna]

Nearing 400 posts in this thread. Will it hit 500 before ICS drops?

 

[MrB206]

MrB206 wrote:
"...But again, you agreed to pay monthly, verizon never agreed to update you to ics in your contract/agreement."

That may be true but that argument is imaterial here.

I agree, yet it keeps coming up.

The material issue is VZW and LG (on more than one occasion) released press releases (initially before the device was even made available for purchase, then one time in May) that advertised a key feature for the phone in a specific timeframe. In those releases, they did not indicate "capability to run" but "will receive".

Because it influenced purchasing decisions and because it had an impact on customers assessing value for the device (and because it only was available on one carrier) the carrier's service to the customer, where there were alternates in both devices and carriers for the consumer, this act is material and fraudulent.

It is an illegal business practice in the United States. :ridinghorse:
I'm not a troll even if my kids think so.

Here's the issue: the FTC has specific guidelines for deceptive advertising and while LG may have met those criteria for a claim with the FTC, Verizon hasn't.

BTW, all of this "SUE THEM!!! YARRR!!!" (in my angry pirate voice) is asinine, because any deceptive advertising act is illegal under 15 USC 41 (The Federal Trade Commissions Act) and enforced by the Federal Trade Commission, so *if* you have a complaint, it will only be heard and possibly addressed if submitted through them.

But before anyone does that, let's consider the rules advertisers must follow: Advertising FAQ's: A Guide for Small Business | BCP Business Center

According to the FTC's Deception Policy Statement, an ad is deceptive if it contains a statement - or omits information - that:

Is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and
Is "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product.

First things first, everyone here needs to understand is civil/common law has this thing called the 'reasonable person' standard; things are not typically black and white and it's generally determined by what a reasonable person would understand the text/law to be. Notice the FTC refers to someone acting 'reasonably'...?

So now that we have that out of the way, let's look at Verizon.

Until recently, the specs page for the Spectrum read: Operating System
Android™ 2.3 Platform (Gingerbread) (Upgradable to Android 4.0) (or something close to that... I don't recall the specifics, but 'upgradable' is the word I know was there. Verizon-LG Spectrum

Now, for Verizon to be guilty of deceptive advertising, a reasonable person would have to see that (which wasn't widely displayed on advertising, but was left to their website and select in-store spec sheets) and believe that meant buying this phone ensured an upgrade to 4.0. But that's a hard sell, since a reasonable person would/should know that stating something is upgradable does not mean it WILL BE upgraded; anyone that's bought a new car knows this and it's not hard for an attorney to argue the fact that 'upgradable' meant the hardware supported the newer version. Had the OS and 'upgradable' been plastered on all the signs and literature to sell the product, there would be a better case that it was a selling point, but it simply was nothing more than a spec sheet footnote that very few customers, other than people HERE and nerds for specs, would see.

So claims against Verizon are moot.

Now, I think in the other locked thread, there was some press release from LG that gave a specific upgrade date, so let's talk about that....

For your complain with the FTC to have any merit, you would have had to purchase the Spectrum *AFTER* that press release was put out, because if you purchased before that press release, there's no way it could have deceived you into buying the product.
Remember, the FTC lawsuits are complaint-driven, so if/when they receive enough *legitimate* complaints, they can sue a company for a violation of the FTCA.


So, if you can find people who purchased Spectrum phones *AFTER* the date-specific LG release was put out, they could file complaints with the FTC for deceptive advertising. However, for the rest of us, the deception by LG did NOT influence our decision to buy the phone, so any claim as such is false.
I'm not saying this whole debacle wasn't a farce, nor am I saying LG offered us a great product; quite the contrary, I think we were given great hardware with shit software. But before people start going down the 'sue them' warpath, it's best to know what we can and can't do. If you guys want to find a group of people that bought the SPec after the LG release and can get them to file FTC complaints, AWESOME.... we might see some action against them. But otherwise, it's best to chill, stop the litigious warpath and learn from this. IMO, if LG cares this little about the product quality they deliver, then I'm not going to support them in the future... I'm sure many of you feel the same.

 

[stef7]

MrB206. Thanks for the background information, but for purposes of calibration, I offer the following:

1). I saw this press release LG CES

You will see the operative information you are omitting.

2). There is the attached PDF which you should also definitely read. When you are on that page, select the PDF icon in the upper right corner of the news room press release. You will find the operative information again.

3). And there is this. Note the URL. and you will see the information again.
Verizon Wireless And LG Mobile Continue Legacy Of Innovation By Offering A True HD Mobile Experience With Spectrum™ By LG

4). And there is this:
Ice Cream Sandwich Coming to Many Verizon Wireless Smartphones

The first three mention the 2nd QTR, and the last just indicates it will be upgraded.

A reaonable person like myself, doing research on an Android phone to purchase would have made their selection of phone and service based on this information. I certainly did. In February as a matter of fact.

When my phone was crushed a month or two later, I purchased another Spectrum to replace it. Before VZW had missed their comittment. It influenced my purchasing decision that time as well.

VZW did meet the criteria for a claim.

 

[MrB206]

Ahh, yea I hadn't seen those. But again, did YOU see those before you bought the device? If not, the argument is moot. Otherwise, find people who saw the releases AND bought it after they were released and they can file complaints.

Basically, it's companies not meeting goals, but you have no recourse unless those releases affected your purchase. So let's be effective and write complaints to them, calling them out. Shit, I might.

 

[stef7]

MrB206, I saw those and read quite a bit on the various devices available at the time of my purchase. I definitely purchased with the knowledge that my device was receiving this "key feature". Many others would honestly say the same thing, even if you said you never saw these (seriously?).

I think a large population of purchasers for this phone did see this and it influenced their purchasing decision. It would be in keeping with the other specs and the fact that people purchased this device rather than Motorola, HTC or Samsung which dominated VZWs push in device offerings and media outlet coverage.

Otherwise, the value proposition wasn't as good for the device (or the service). You know, leaving that information off their press release and introducing it with GB wouldn't have made the interest in the device very large compared to the deviced being introduced by other manufacturers now would it?. :smokingsomb:

So in effect both companies were hyping the device prior to its introduction on the VZW network. And they were not issuing press releases to the effect that they weren't going to make good on thier advertisements did they?

Yes, material, yes, fraudulent, and yes, actionable.
I have heard of others that have received GNs via BBB complaints as documented on the LG Forums.

I don't want a GN. I just want the LG Spectrum's advertised key feature. I would however accept a voucher for a Spectrum II or LG Optimus G if either get released on VZW. I think it more likely they will have ICS or JB, than the Spectrum will get ICS.

 

[steamer86]

I read all the articles before buying my Spectrum. I can 100% honestly say the ICS upgrade date in the second quarter of 2012 is the final reason for purchasing this device. I would have otherwise gotten the Gnex. I could not justify the price difference between the two for what otherwise seemed like inferior hardware (Gnex/Razr). The price difference and said timeline drew me to buying the LG Spectrum. I didn't mind waiting a few months, as of now, it is just annoying. I don't want a nex or razr, I just want ICS on my Spec, and if not, at least give me a discount / ect on the Spec2/Opt. I really like this phone. It does all I need it to, I just don't like being gimmicked the way I was.

 

[MrB206]

I think a large population of purchasers for this phone did see this and it influenced their purchasing decision. It would be in keeping with the other specs and the fact that people purchased this device rather than Motorola, HTC or Samsung which dominated VZWs push in device offerings and media outlet coverage.

I think you give the average American FARRRR too much credit as an informed consumer. The average American doesn't read spec sheets, nor do they care about them, which is why the iPhone can sell 5mil in the first week.
Most people want to know it's pretty, plays music and lets them text. I hate to reduce the majority of our population to tech-ret4rds, but Americans, especially older Americans that buy these products, are; we're not the Japanese.

As I see it, there are 3 types of people that bought this device:

1- People like me who knew it was unlocked and wanted to dev on it.
2- People who like LG and wanted a pretty new one with an HD screen.
3- People who felt it was a better choice than the Razr or Gnex, because it was faster, but they didn't really know or care to know much else.

Your contention that VZ has broken advertising laws is simply false. They haven't met an advertised and expected goal, but last I checked, neither VZ or LG has officially stated the update is scrapped. If VZ never gives the device ICS, it's false advertising, but simply stating "Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich upgrade available the first half of 2012" in a press release, but then delivering late is not false advertising, nor is it a deceptive business practice.

... but you are under the belief that the upgrade was an "advertised key feature"? You're delusional and allowing your personal anger to cloud rationality here. The upgrade blurb wasn't plastered on signs at the stores, nor was it a major point in the main web page. As I said, it was a foot note on the specs page, so that's hardly a key feature.

I do get a chuckle out of the expectations of compensation you and others have... you owned and used a perfectly fine phone for what, 6+ months? And from that, you expect a swapped out Spec 2 or OptG? I lulz, just like I lulz at the people who think they are owed a new Razr or Gnex. If you drove a car off the lot and 6 months later didn't like that your roof rack wasn't upgraded like you were told would be possible, would you demand an equal vehicle from another manufacturer from the dealership? Of course not, so why do you or anyone else feel they have some right to do so here? Yes, we have a lemon phone and that sucks, but this retributive attitude in America is killing us... sometimes you get a sh*t deal and that's what we got here. Learn from it and move on (meaning ditch VZ if you don't like how they handled it and ditch LG if you don't like the phone they gave us).

Ironically, I'm on my 3rd Spectrum, so if I were to go into the store, I would get a new device like a Razr or similar device, because of VZ's lemon rule of 3, but I don't really give enough of a sh*t to do so... not to mention the random reboots are non-existent on Black Plague. Of course... I guess I could boot Stock back up and get a Razr... *shrug*

So here's what I suggest:

If you have issues with the phone, bring it to the store and get a new one. After 3, you get an equal phone from another manufacturer. Write Verizon complaints (if you so desire) and if you know anyone that was directly affected by the press releases, have them file complaints with the FTC. Otherwise, let's let this issue die.

 

[stef7]

MRB206, you wrote:

As I see it, there are 3 types of people that bought this device:

1- People like me who knew it was unlocked and wanted to dev on it.
2- People who like LG and wanted a pretty new one with an HD screen.
3- People who felt it was a better choice than the Razr or Gnex, because it was faster, but they didn't really know or care to know much else.

Well, you forgot at least one class of people: those that do research and chose based on valuable features, and ICS was an advertised key (and very valuable) feature.

Your contention that VZ has broken advertising laws is simply false.

Unfortunately you are wrong on that one.

They haven't met an advertised and expected goal, but last I checked, neither VZ or LG has officially stated the update is scrapped. If VZ never gives the device ICS, it's false advertising, but simply stating "Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich upgrade available the first half of 2012" in a press release, but then delivering late is not false advertising, nor is it a deceptive business practice.

Nope, that is also erroneous. It was not a goal, it was advertised as a key feature. They labeled it as such in case people were stupid enough not to think so. Key Feature. This is very simple for everyone to understand and comprehend. Without indicating it, the device would be perceived at it's intro as much less valuable.

... but you are under the belief that the upgrade was an "advertised key feature"? You're delusional and allowing your personal anger to cloud rationality here.

No, they advertised it as such. They labeled it a key feature but I'm being too repetitive. And it's material w.r.t. FTC interpretation. Did you actually read the documents from the URLs I provided, or did you just glance them over?

The upgrade blurb wasn't plastered on signs at the stores, nor was it a major point in the main web page. As I said, it was a foot note on the specs page, so that's hardly a key feature.

No, it wasn't a blurb or a footnote. Come on.

I do get a chuckle out of the expectations of compensation you and others have... you owned and used a perfectly fine phone for what, 6+ months? And from that, you expect a swapped out Spec 2 or OptG?

Yes. That is correct in part, except no - I expect a NEW Spec2 or OptG, not a swapped out unit. Had I (and others) known that LG and VZW were not going to deliver the device advertised, I wouldn't have purchased it... I might have gone with a different service provider too. Both companies are partnering in fraudulent activity, and in the USA, it is illegal to do so.

I'm suggesting a way that LG can make the situation right in an economical manner that is also a positive for all parties. You never know, they might choose to offer a voucher and one up their competition. They are behind Samsung, HTC, Motorola... It's actually a decent suggestion, but only one way to make the situation right.

I lulz, just like I lulz at the people who think they are owed a new Razr or Gnex. If you drove a car off the lot and 6 months later didn't like that your roof rack wasn't upgraded like you were told would be possible, would you demand an equal vehicle from another manufacturer from the dealership?

When you lulz, does it hurt?

No, if I purchased a new vehicle that was advertised to get 40MPG, and 6months later, it was determined the vehicle only delivered 35 to it's owners, that would be grounds for asking for consideration to make the situation right.

Of course not, so why do you or anyone else feel they have some right to do so here? Yes, we have a lemon phone and that sucks, but this retributive attitude in America is killing us... sometimes you get a sh*t deal and that's what we got here. Learn from it and move on (meaning ditch VZ if you don't like how they handled it and ditch LG if you don't like the phone they gave us).

All owners of Spectrums and Lucid devices have a right to demand one or both companies make the situation right. I've got a 2yr contract and I've purchased two of these devices. If I ditch VZW it will be at great financial loss.

Ironically, I'm on my 3rd Spectrum, so if I were to go into the store, I would get a new device like a Razr or similar device, because of VZ's lemon rule of 3, but I don't really give enough of a sh*t to do so... not to mention the random reboots are non-existent on Black Plague. Of course... I guess I could boot Stock back up and get a Razr... *shrug*

No, I've been burned by Motorola; no love for me there.

So here's what I suggest:

If you have issues with the phone, bring it to the store and get a new one. After 3, you get an equal phone from another manufacturer. Write Verizon complaints (if you so desire) and if you know anyone that was directly affected by the press releases, have them file complaints with the FTC. Otherwise, let's let this issue die.

Bringing it to the store will do no good. I'd rather not let it die. How about you just ignore the thread and these posts instead of sticking people for expecting and attempting to get VZW and LG to do the right thing?

 

[MrB206]

Your contention that VZ has broken advertising laws is simply false.

Unfortunately you are wrong on that one.

Ahh have a degree/education in law do ya?

We haven't been told definitively and officially that the upgrade is scrapped; until that happens, you have *ZERO* basis for a claim, because they can reply that it's 'pending' or 'in production'. Even then, the company has to knowingly use the claim to mislead, not simply have a production plan but not be able to meet it. The key to deceptive advertising is not 'good faith' shortfalls and errors, but true deception to drive more sales. You can see that in cases like Taser v Stinger; the company has to knowingly misrepresent information to be break the law.

Seeing as how we KNOW they're working on an ICS upgrade (the leak and the links on LG's website), you're going to have quite a difficult time proving LG or Verizon knowingly deceived customers about an ICS upgrade. Had we never found any evidence of an ICS upgrade, you'd have a good case, but we have evidence, so you have no case... that is, again, unless/until they officially say they're not upgrading it.

And your MPG analogy doesn't work. We know the RAM and CPU speed (both current benchmarks) and they're as advertised; the upgrade is an upgrade, so you'd have to relate it to an upgradable feature, as I did. Now, if the release and advertising said it came with ICS, that would be similar to your MPG analogy...not to mention it would be outright false.

Listen, if you want to live in a dream world where you think 'someone has to pay' and the delayed launch of ICS = false advertising, that's fine. Thankfully, our legal system has a bit more rationality than you do.

That said, I'm holding out to see what tdm and d2a get worked out with CM9. I could probably return the device, but if I got CM9 on it, this thing would be a beast... which is why I bought it in the first place. It's a monster phone that will operate phenomenally with CM9 or an AOSP on it.