Ask a question
Search in Wireless Forums

Questions about your Smartphone data usage? Please join us here for a live “Ask an Expert” event on Wednesday, August 24th from 1-5 pm ET / 10am-2pm PT.

Wireless Forum

Reply
Posted Jan 16, 2011
8:22:35 PM
GALAXY S NO-FROYO EXPLAINED BY SAMSUNG UPDATE FEES?
Edited by hello?hello? on Jan 16, 2011 at 8:23:43 PM

I don't know whether this has been posted yet:

 

http://androidcommunity.com/galaxy-s-no-froyo-explained-by-samsung-update-fees-20110116/

 

FROM THE ARTICLE:

 

So you’re following along with the epic story of how Galaxy S devices across the board still don’t have their long-awaited update to Android 2.2 Froyo, yes? Well take a peek at this – a supposed Samsung inside has come forth (in XDA forums) to say that the reason for the stopping of updates pushing through from Samsung to carriers is the fact that Samsung is charging for Android updates as feature updates – and that carriers are responding to the costs by refusing to pay for Android 2.2, hoping to devalue the Galaxy S line.

 

This is wild. All carriers carrying Galaxy S phones with potential updates to Android 2.2 Froyo not paying some sort of fee to Samsung for that up update? Seems kind of incredible. Take a peek at the full text from the supposed Samsung source, originally posted in XDA Forums, here:

 

[quote]

Hello,

I’m going to step across the NDAs and explain the issues behind the Android Froyo update to Samsung Galaxy S phones in the United States. I think most of you have come to this realization yourself now: the withholding of the Froyo update is a largely political one, not a technological one: Froyo runs quite well on Galaxy S phones, as those of you that have run leaked updates may have noticed.

 

To explain the political situation, first, a primer on how phone firmware upgrades work for carriers. When a carrier decides to sell a phone, a contract is usually written between the phone manufacturer and the carrier. In this contract, the cost of updates (to the carrier) is usually outlined. Updates are usually broken into several types: critical updates, maintenance updates, and feature updates. Critical updates are those that resolve a critical bug in the phone, such as the phone overheating. Maintenance updates involve routine updates to resolve bugs and other issues reported by the carrier. Finally, feature updates add some new feature in software that wasn’t present before. Critical updates are usually free, maintenance updates have some maintenance fee associated with them, and feature updates are usually costly.

 

In the past, most phone updates would mainly consist of critical and maintenance updates. Carriers almost never want to incur the cost of a feature update because it is of little benefit to them, adds little to the device, and involves a lot of testing on the carrier end. Android has changed the playing field, however – since the Android Open Source Project is constantly being updated, and that information being made widely available to the public, there is pressure for the phone to be constantly updated with the latest version of Android. 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.

 

Now, here’s where the politics come in: most U.S. carriers aren’t very happy with Samsung’s decision to charge for Android updates as feature updates, especially since they are essentially charging for the Android Open Source Project’s efforts, and the effort on Samsung’s end is rather minimal. As a result of perhaps, corporate collusion, all U.S. carriers have decided to refuse to pay for the Android 2.2 update, in hopes that the devaluation of the Galaxy S line will cause Samsung to drop their fees and give the update to the carriers. The situation has panned out differently in other parts of the world, but this is the situation in the United States.

 

Some of you might have noticed Verion’s Fascinate updated, but without 2.2 : This is a result of a maintenance agreement Samsung must honor combined with Verizon’s unwillingness to pay the update fees.

 

In short, Android 2.2 is on hold for Galaxy S phones until the U.S. carriers and Samsung reach a consensus.

Some might wonder why I didn’t deliver this over a more legitimate news channel – the short answer: I don’t want to lose my job. I do, however, appreciate transparency, which is why I’m here.[/quote]

 

This is interesting – very interesting! It doesn’t seem completely undeniable, yet seems like quite the story coming from a Samsung Insider given the FACT that every single person working for Samsung works FOR Samsung unless they’re on the way out. Think about that.

 

//END OF ARTICLE... taken from Google RSS Reader

I don't know whether this has been posted yet:

 

http://androidcommunity.com/galaxy-s-no-froyo-explained-by-samsung-update-fees-20110116/

 

FROM THE ARTICLE:

 

So you’re following along with the epic story of how Galaxy S devices across the board still don’t have their long-awaited update to Android 2.2 Froyo, yes? Well take a peek at this – a supposed Samsung inside has come forth (in XDA forums) to say that the reason for the stopping of updates pushing through from Samsung to carriers is the fact that Samsung is charging for Android updates as feature updates – and that carriers are responding to the costs by refusing to pay for Android 2.2, hoping to devalue the Galaxy S line.

 

This is wild. All carriers carrying Galaxy S phones with potential updates to Android 2.2 Froyo not paying some sort of fee to Samsung for that up update? Seems kind of incredible. Take a peek at the full text from the supposed Samsung source, originally posted in XDA Forums, here:

 

[quote]

Hello,

I’m going to step across the NDAs and explain the issues behind the Android Froyo update to Samsung Galaxy S phones in the United States. I think most of you have come to this realization yourself now: the withholding of the Froyo update is a largely political one, not a technological one: Froyo runs quite well on Galaxy S phones, as those of you that have run leaked updates may have noticed.

 

To explain the political situation, first, a primer on how phone firmware upgrades work for carriers. When a carrier decides to sell a phone, a contract is usually written between the phone manufacturer and the carrier. In this contract, the cost of updates (to the carrier) is usually outlined. Updates are usually broken into several types: critical updates, maintenance updates, and feature updates. Critical updates are those that resolve a critical bug in the phone, such as the phone overheating. Maintenance updates involve routine updates to resolve bugs and other issues reported by the carrier. Finally, feature updates add some new feature in software that wasn’t present before. Critical updates are usually free, maintenance updates have some maintenance fee associated with them, and feature updates are usually costly.

 

In the past, most phone updates would mainly consist of critical and maintenance updates. Carriers almost never want to incur the cost of a feature update because it is of little benefit to them, adds little to the device, and involves a lot of testing on the carrier end. Android has changed the playing field, however – since the Android Open Source Project is constantly being updated, and that information being made widely available to the public, there is pressure for the phone to be constantly updated with the latest version of Android. 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.

 

Now, here’s where the politics come in: most U.S. carriers aren’t very happy with Samsung’s decision to charge for Android updates as feature updates, especially since they are essentially charging for the Android Open Source Project’s efforts, and the effort on Samsung’s end is rather minimal. As a result of perhaps, corporate collusion, all U.S. carriers have decided to refuse to pay for the Android 2.2 update, in hopes that the devaluation of the Galaxy S line will cause Samsung to drop their fees and give the update to the carriers. The situation has panned out differently in other parts of the world, but this is the situation in the United States.

 

Some of you might have noticed Verion’s Fascinate updated, but without 2.2 : This is a result of a maintenance agreement Samsung must honor combined with Verizon’s unwillingness to pay the update fees.

 

In short, Android 2.2 is on hold for Galaxy S phones until the U.S. carriers and Samsung reach a consensus.

Some might wonder why I didn’t deliver this over a more legitimate news channel – the short answer: I don’t want to lose my job. I do, however, appreciate transparency, which is why I’m here.[/quote]

 

This is interesting – very interesting! It doesn’t seem completely undeniable, yet seems like quite the story coming from a Samsung Insider given the FACT that every single person working for Samsung works FOR Samsung unless they’re on the way out. Think about that.

 

//END OF ARTICLE... taken from Google RSS Reader

GALAXY S NO-FROYO EXPLAINED BY SAMSUNG UPDATE FEES?

[ Edited ]
2,804 views
5 replies
(0) Me too
(0) Me too
Reply
View all replies
(5)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jan 17, 2011 9:38:48 AM
0
(0)
Teacher
Edited by Space_Cowboy on Jan 17, 2011 at 9:39:28 AM

Whether this is true or not, AT&T needs to cough up 2.2 for its user community.  I bought the phone with the impression that AT&T would upgrade the phone once Samsung made it available like many others.  Now that its been made available, AT&T is in indefinite holding pattern?!?  No way, no how.  Everyone should fight back threatening to turn their Captivates back in due to lack of support.  AT&T doesn't need to be playing games with its client base, because once stung, their current clients will leave them.  AT&T needs to wake up!

Whether this is true or not, AT&T needs to cough up 2.2 for its user community.  I bought the phone with the impression that AT&T would upgrade the phone once Samsung made it available like many others.  Now that its been made available, AT&T is in indefinite holding pattern?!?  No way, no how.  Everyone should fight back threatening to turn their Captivates back in due to lack of support.  AT&T doesn't need to be playing games with its client base, because once stung, their current clients will leave them.  AT&T needs to wake up!

Re: GALAXY S NO-FROYO EXPLAINED BY SAMSUNG UPDATE FEES?

[ Edited ]
2 of 6 (2,642 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jan 17, 2011 10:01:29 AM
0
(0)
Master

The gapping hole in that theory is that Samsung openly promised Froyo updates for all US Galaxy S phones in US Galaxy S launch press event while carriers are pretty much silent on this matter. So, let me rephrase this:

 

1. I have a new phone for sell and I promise you that you will get Froyo update after you purchased my phone now.

 

2. Couple months later, I said if you want Froyo update on the phone you have, give me couple million $$ fees. Otherwise, I'll withhold the update.

 

So who's the bad guy here?

 

 

The gapping hole in that theory is that Samsung openly promised Froyo updates for all US Galaxy S phones in US Galaxy S launch press event while carriers are pretty much silent on this matter. So, let me rephrase this:

 

1. I have a new phone for sell and I promise you that you will get Froyo update after you purchased my phone now.

 

2. Couple months later, I said if you want Froyo update on the phone you have, give me couple million $$ fees. Otherwise, I'll withhold the update.

 

So who's the bad guy here?

 

 

Re: GALAXY S NO-FROYO EXPLAINED BY SAMSUNG UPDATE FEES?

3 of 6 (2,623 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jan 17, 2011 11:34:02 AM
0
(0)
Teacher

 


foxbat121 wrote:

The gapping hole in that theory is that Samsung openly promised Froyo updates for all US Galaxy S phones in US Galaxy S launch press event while carriers are pretty much silent on this matter. So, let me rephrase this:

 

1. I have a new phone for sell and I promise you that you will get Froyo update after you purchased my phone now.

 

2. Couple months later, I said if you want Froyo update on the phone you have, give me couple million $$ fees. Otherwise, I'll withhold the update.

 

So who's the bad guy here?

 

 


 

That to me explains exactly WHY the carriers are silent, they know it's bad press if it gets out that they're holding out to save some $.  GREED.

 

Samsung, having been open with the carriers about any feature upgrade fees, made the upgrade available.  So they have kept their promise and had no reason to believe the carriers would hold out like this.  I have no reason to believe AT&T was not aware of any cost prior to the release of the Captivate.

 


foxbat121 wrote:

The gapping hole in that theory is that Samsung openly promised Froyo updates for all US Galaxy S phones in US Galaxy S launch press event while carriers are pretty much silent on this matter. So, let me rephrase this:

 

1. I have a new phone for sell and I promise you that you will get Froyo update after you purchased my phone now.

 

2. Couple months later, I said if you want Froyo update on the phone you have, give me couple million $$ fees. Otherwise, I'll withhold the update.

 

So who's the bad guy here?

 

 


 

That to me explains exactly WHY the carriers are silent, they know it's bad press if it gets out that they're holding out to save some $.  GREED.

 

Samsung, having been open with the carriers about any feature upgrade fees, made the upgrade available.  So they have kept their promise and had no reason to believe the carriers would hold out like this.  I have no reason to believe AT&T was not aware of any cost prior to the release of the Captivate.

Re: GALAXY S NO-FROYO EXPLAINED BY SAMSUNG UPDATE FEES?

4 of 6 (2,573 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jan 17, 2011 1:05:28 PM
0
(0)
Teacher

I highly doubt a mfg is going to say "oh, by the way... there is an additional fee if you want future upgrades" after the fact.  I'm sure Samsung told all of the carriers before hand.

I highly doubt a mfg is going to say "oh, by the way... there is an additional fee if you want future upgrades" after the fact.  I'm sure Samsung told all of the carriers before hand.

Re: GALAXY S NO-FROYO EXPLAINED BY SAMSUNG UPDATE FEES?

5 of 6 (2,527 Views)
Highlighted
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jan 17, 2011 1:45:03 PM
0
(0)
Master
Edited by foxbat121 on Jan 17, 2011 at 1:45:29 PM

RyBiv wrote:

 

 

That to me explains exactly WHY the carriers are silent, they know it's bad press if it gets out that they're holding out to save some $.  GREED.

 

Samsung, having been open with the carriers about any feature upgrade fees, made the upgrade available.  So they have kept their promise and had no reason to believe the carriers would hold out like this.  I have no reason to believe AT&T was not aware of any cost prior to the release of the Captivate.


Well, to customers, it doesn't really matters who's holding out the update. If Samsung SAID it will offer update and it didn't, the blame is on Samsung.

 

Maybe Samsung should have consulted with the carriers before promised the world that Froyo will be out. After all, it's not like this is the first time Samsung dealted with firmware and OS updates with Carriers.


RyBiv wrote:

 

 

That to me explains exactly WHY the carriers are silent, they know it's bad press if it gets out that they're holding out to save some $.  GREED.

 

Samsung, having been open with the carriers about any feature upgrade fees, made the upgrade available.  So they have kept their promise and had no reason to believe the carriers would hold out like this.  I have no reason to believe AT&T was not aware of any cost prior to the release of the Captivate.


Well, to customers, it doesn't really matters who's holding out the update. If Samsung SAID it will offer update and it didn't, the blame is on Samsung.

 

Maybe Samsung should have consulted with the carriers before promised the world that Froyo will be out. After all, it's not like this is the first time Samsung dealted with firmware and OS updates with Carriers.

Re: GALAXY S NO-FROYO EXPLAINED BY SAMSUNG UPDATE FEES?

[ Edited ]
6 of 6 (2,503 Views)
Advanced
You must be signed in to add attachments
Share this post
Share this post