Galaxy s no-froyo explained by samsung update fees?

This is a discussion on Galaxy s no-froyo explained by samsung update fees? within the Samsung Captivate forums, part of the Samsung Android Phones category; Ripped right off of the AT&T Samsung forum. (every word. none of this is my thoughts) Galaxy S No-Froyo Explained by Samsung Update Fees? | ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Galaxy s no-froyo explained by samsung update fees?

  1. #1
    Member Clarence's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    38

    Galaxy s no-froyo explained by samsung update fees?

    Ripped right off of the AT&T Samsung forum. (every word. none of this is my thoughts)

    Galaxy S No-Froyo Explained by Samsung Update Fees? | Android Community

    FROM THE ARTICLE:

    So youíre following along with the epic story of how Galaxy S devices across the board still donít have their long-awaited update to Android 2.2 Froyo, yes? Well take a peek at this Ė 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 Ė 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:

    Hello,
    Iím 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 wasnít 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 Ė 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, hereís where the politics come in: most U.S. carriers arenít very happy with Samsungís decision to charge for Android updates as feature updates, especially since they are essentially charging for the Android Open Source Projectís efforts, and the effort on Samsungís 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 Verionís Fascinate updated, but without 2.2 : This is a result of a maintenance agreement Samsung must honor combined with Verizonís 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 didnít deliver this over a more legitimate news channel Ė the short answer: I donít want to lose my job. I do, however, appreciate transparency, which is why Iím here.
    This is interesting Ė very interesting! It doesnít 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 theyíre on the way out. Think about that.

  2. Android.net is the premier Android Forum. Registered users do not see these ads. .

  3. #2
    Super Moderator Dorian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    between 850-1900MHz
    Posts
    885
    Thanked
    71 times
    Twitter
    @Dorian_At_ATT
    Wow. That is some serious *insert expletive here*!! I like Samsung and all, and they make really great hardware, but this is crazy. I hope for Samsung's sake that this is not true, because the big news sites are going to eat this up.

    EDIT: Thank God for samfirmware!

  4. #3
    Member Clarence's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Dorian View Post
    Wow. That is some serious *insert expletive here*!! I like Samsung and all, and they make really great hardware, but this is crazy. I hope for Samsung's sake that this is not true, because the big news sites are going to eat this up.

    EDIT: Thank God for samfirmware!
    I have bought 3 Samsung phones since being an AT&T customer beginning in 2005. If this turns out to be true, I'll never buy another Samsung telephone. Personally, I don't have a problem with AT&T. Never have. I would draw a line in the sand just like the major carriers have done in this case (if this is true).

    Dorian, do you know enough, or anything about whether AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile could release their own Froyo for their respective Galaxy's?

    I'd like to apologize for making the inane "I'll never buy another blah, blah, blah...." comment. Very similar to "I'm dumping <pick your carrier> as soon as my contract runs out blah, blah, blah..." I hate it when I see it in other posts so I must repent and vow to never sin again. Where was I, oh yeah,

    Samsung, if this is true and you are being deceitful, I'll never buy another Samsung telephone for as long as I live. There, take that!

    Yes, I am a hypocrite.

  5. #4
    Senior Member jmgib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    1,350
    As someone mentioned in the original thread, the carriers aren't off the hook though. They all signed and agreed to the terms when they got the phones from Samsung. If it was an issue it should have been dealt with and addressed then. If that is what was agreed to, then all the carriers should pony up and pay for the upgrade, or simply own up to the fact that they aren't willing to now pay for the upgrades and be honest about it.
    Avatar courtesy of Elliott C. 'Eeyore' Evans

  6. #5
    Super Moderator Dorian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    between 850-1900MHz
    Posts
    885
    Thanked
    71 times
    Twitter
    @Dorian_At_ATT
    Quote Originally Posted by Clarence View Post
    I have bought 3 Samsung phones since being an AT&T customer beginning in 2005. If this turns out to be true, I'll never buy another Samsung telephone. Personally, I don't have a problem with AT&T. Never have. I would draw a line in the sand just like the major carriers have done in this case (if this is true).

    Dorian, do you know enough, or anything about whether AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile could release their own Froyo for their respective Galaxy's?

    I'd like to apologize for making the inane "I'll never buy another blah, blah, blah...." comment. Very similar to "I'm dumping <pick your carrier> as soon as my contract runs out blah, blah, blah..." I hate it when I see it in other posts so I must repent and vow to never sin again. Where was I, oh yeah,

    Samsung, if this is true and you are being deceitful, I'll never buy another Samsung telephone for as long as I live. There, take that!

    Yes, I am a hypocrite.
    Well, I know for a fact that most of what's said in that article is 100% true. I'm just not sure about Samsung charging outside the contractual agreement made when AT&T signed with them.

    About the carriers releasing their own Froyo... Technically they could, but it wouldn't be in their best interests as it would void any warranty on the device. I work for AT&T as a RAN Engineer and we see custom firmware on these devices roll through all the time, so that's why I'm skeptical about this article. Samsung has already assembled several, several 2.2 ROM's that are specifically targeted to the US customers, so while they haven't officially released them, that doesn't mean they don't exist. Matter of fact Samsung has had Froyo compiled for the Galaxy S devices since last September.

    IMO, there's an angle in there somewhere that someone isn't looking at right.

  7. #6
    Android Addict marvin_attdroids's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    563
    deleted by author

  8. #7
    Member Clarence's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    38
    Thanks Dorian and Marvin, for bringing your insight. I try to not believe everything I read but it is easy to demonize someone just as soon as the first person shouts "He did it!" and then the riot ensues. Especially when, out of frustration, you want to blame someone, anyone, for making us wait unnecessarily. I'll be glad to report more rumor and hearsay as soon as I find it.

  9. #8
    Senior Member Con5150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Bronx NY
    Posts
    371
    I need to find the humor in all of this because I thought I was going to get a different experience with Samsung after going through the Backflip 2.1 debacle ......that lasted about two days after getting my Captivate .....now I have 2.1 but am waiting on 2.2....not going crazy on this though , it does suck that there is an upgrade out there and I don't have it.....

  10. #9
    Android Addict marvin_attdroids's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    563
    deleted by author

  11. #10
    Senior Member Con5150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Bronx NY
    Posts
    371
    Agree Marvin.....I liked the BF and feel if it came out now it probably would be a better device.....not going crazy on the upgrade with the captivate because as you said it works fine....I really have no complaints about it ........over at another board I go to there are members talking about mass lawsuits....I mean really?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Remove Ads

http://www.scramblerducati.org/

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

android forums

Click on a term to search our sites for related topics.
Android Forum