Welcome to XDA

Search to go directly to your device's forum

Register an account

Unlock full posting privileges

Ask a question

No registration required
Post Reply

Are we EOL?

OP KarateExplosion6

5th April 2012, 03:18 PM   |  #51  
BleedsOrangeandBlue's Avatar
Senior Member
Flag Charleston, SC
Thanks Meter: 50
 
186 posts
Join Date:Joined: Jul 2011
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlie_c

There isn't any. It's voluntary and nothing more than a goal. No enforcement, no guarantee, just a stated goal. Also, you have to remember that our phone was in development well before this goal was ever publicly stated. The things that would help with meeting this 18-month goal of support (like more RAM, more space for system files, etc) need to be known and incorporated during the development phase. There's no reason to think this was the case.

A new car that is introduced at the same time as new federal safety regulations will not be held to those standards, because the car has already been created. The regulations are for governing future development, not things that already exist.

My assumption is that manufacturers, going forward from that agreement, would try and make sure their hardware was sufficient to support at least 18 months of software upgrades and that their UIs were internally consistent enough to make the upgrades easier and quicker to deploy.

Let's take your example and run with it.

Why do you suppose that car manufacturers aren't held to those safety regulations? I'd argue that its safe to say its because they can't adhere to a regulation that doesn't exist yet, right?

If that's true, and the phone manufacturers before were only capable of creating devices that have "relevant" hardware 6 months from production, why are we to believe that they're now capable of seeing what software demands are going to be over a year out? How can they hold themselves to a standard that doesn't yet exist?

To ask another way, look at one of your own sentences;

"(like more RAM, more space for system files, etc) need to be known and incorporated during the development phase"

Short of a crystal ball, how will they know these things that "need to be known during the development phase" if the software hasn't been developed yet?

Conversely, do you think that they were limiting the hardware they were putting in phones to only minimally meet the software demands of their current OS? I don't, as the progression we've seen in hardware over the lifespan of gingerbread has increased pretty significantly, which would lead one to believe that hardware development (and not simply meeting minimal software requirements) is what is driving what is actually making it into the devices.

By your framework, they're either incapable of making a phone relevant for more than six months or they've been intentionally not doing it. I don't see (based on technological progression) how anyone could argue the latter, which would leave only the former. If the former is true, why would they be able to TRIPLE that time frame now? You think they weren't "trying really, really hard" before? Or do you think they'll be able to predict the future and know what the software reqs for the next major iteration of Android will be and are focusing their development on that?

Does that mean that the 18 month thing is just a sham and isn't even a realistic goal to be set?

How should I feel about the Thunderbolt getting ICS? It was released even earlier than the Charge. Is that an indictment against Samsung? I'm genuinely asking...not trying to be combative.


Quote:
Originally Posted by charlie_c

I of course hope we get ICS from somewhere, but it's a long, long stretch to try and hold them to that 18 month goal for a phone that was launched before that was ever announced.

Again, I'm not trying to "hold" them to the agreement. If you quoted anything more than the first half of the first sentence of that entire paragraph, then it would be clear that "holding them to it" is exactly NOT what I'm trying to suggest.
5th April 2012, 03:52 PM   |  #52  
Senior Member
Thanks Meter: 60
 
183 posts
Join Date:Joined: Aug 2011
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by BleedsOrangeandBlue

Let's take your example and run with it.

Why do you suppose that car manufacturers aren't held to those safety regulations? I'd argue that its safe to say its because they can't adhere to a regulation that doesn't exist yet, right?

If that's true, and the phone manufacturers before were only capable of creating devices that have "relevant" hardware 6 months from production, why are we to believe that they're now capable of seeing what software demands are going to be over a year out? How can they hold themselves to a standard that doesn't yet exist?

To ask another way, look at one of your own sentences;

"(like more RAM, more space for system files, etc) need to be known and incorporated during the development phase"

Short of a crystal ball, how will they know these things that "need to be known during the development phase" if the software hasn't been developed yet?

I don't know why you're over complicating this argument. It's not difficult to slightly over engineer something to increase the useful life of it. If there is an expectation that you need to future proof something more than you were previously, all you need to do is improve the common bottleneck areas that I mentioned previously (RAM, system storage space).

Going back to the car analogy, it's not hard for an auto manufacturer to design a car that exceeds current CAFE standards with the expectation that future CAFE standards will be more demanding (or increase crash protection/number of airbags with the expectation that crash protection regulations will become more stringent).

Obviously there is no "crystal ball", so they may not be able to foresee regulation changes requiring a higher hood line to improve pedestrian impact safety, but the general idea is pretty simple. Look at requirements a few years ago. Look at requirements now. Plot a linear or exponential line if you want and you can predict roughly where they'll be in a few years from now. Phone manufacturers have a few smart employees, I'm sure they can figure it out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BleedsOrangeandBlue

Conversely, do you think that they were limiting the hardware they were putting in phones to only minimally meet the software demands of their current OS? I don't, as the progression we've seen in hardware over the lifespan of gingerbread has increased pretty significantly, which would lead one to believe that hardware development (and not simply meeting minimal software requirements) is what is driving what is actually making it into the devices.

By your framework, they're either incapable of making a phone relevant for more than six months or they've been intentionally not doing it. I don't see (based on technological progression) how anyone could argue the latter, which would leave only the former. If the former is true, why would they be able to TRIPLE that time frame now? You think they weren't "trying really, really hard" before? Or do you think they'll be able to predict the future and know what the software reqs for the next major iteration of Android will be and are focusing their development on that?

Does that mean that the 18 month thing is just a sham and isn't even a realistic goal to be set?

How should I feel about the Thunderbolt getting ICS? It was released even earlier than the Charge. Is that an indictment against Samsung? I'm genuinely asking...not trying to be combative.

Again, you're making this very difficult and convoluted, but it's pretty simple. All it means, quite simply, is that there is now a target. Before, there was no target. As far as I know, before, they could release a phone, and as long as the hardware was basically sufficient for the launch OS, what was the problem? What was the expectation that had been set for the length of product support cycle? What were the guidelines? If there were no expectations and no guidelines, then manufacturers could release devices with whatever hardware they wanted. It was driven by component cost and marketing.

The major difference that should be obvious now is that there are guidelines and expectations that they can use to base their decisions on that did not exist before.

As far as the TB, you can think what you want. They made better decisions in some areas regarding components specs and design maybe, and I'm sure they work internally very differently than Samsung. Maybe it is a indictment against Samsung, but I'd say it's more indicative of how flawed and inconsistent the Android support cycle has been for the different devices.
5th April 2012, 05:14 PM   |  #53  
luis86dr's Avatar
Senior Member
Flag Jersey
Thanks Meter: 1,591
 
2,220 posts
Join Date:Joined: May 2009
More
I just saw that the Aviator is launching with 2.3.6. Probably Fp1.

Sent from my SCH-I510 using XDA
5th April 2012, 06:51 PM   |  #54  
JihadSquad's Avatar
Senior Member
Flag Madison, WI
Thanks Meter: 244
 
1,586 posts
Join Date:Joined: Oct 2011
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by luis86dr

I just saw that the Aviator is launching with 2.3.6. Probably Fp1.

Sent from my SCH-I510 using XDA

WTF is up with aviator now? I live in one of the US Cellular lte areas and they have a CDMA only galaxy s II or something. Now they are launching LTE and downgrading to this phone?
5th April 2012, 07:00 PM   |  #55  
imnuts's Avatar
Recognized Developer
Flag West Chester
Thanks Meter: 3,003
 
3,452 posts
Join Date:Joined: Jul 2007
Donate to Me
More
Lets say you buy a new computer, knowing that there is going to be an OS update for it in 2 months. Is the OEM that made your computer responsible for updating you to the latest OS? Or even updating any software and drivers to be compatible with it? Why should a smartphone be any different? Cost factor? You think it's free for the OEMs to produce the updates and then support them? If you think it's so easy, why don't you do it yourself? Android is opensource, and a lot of the work is already done, so why don't you get the phone updated for all of us?
5th April 2012, 07:33 PM   |  #56  
luis86dr's Avatar
Senior Member
Flag Jersey
Thanks Meter: 1,591
 
2,220 posts
Join Date:Joined: May 2009
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by JihadSquad

WTF is up with aviator now? I live in one of the US Cellular lte areas and they have a CDMA only galaxy s II or something. Now they are launching LTE and downgrading to this phone?

Yeah, seems to be that way. I mean this isn't a horrible device but they could have picked better imo.

Sent from my Droid Charge
Follow me on Twitter @lmrtech
5th April 2012, 07:54 PM   |  #57  
JihadSquad's Avatar
Senior Member
Flag Madison, WI
Thanks Meter: 244
 
1,586 posts
Join Date:Joined: Oct 2011
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by luis86dr

Yeah, seems to be that way. I mean this isn't a horrible device but they could have picked better imo.

Sent from my Droid Charge
Follow me on Twitter @lmrtech

True but I guess that there is no current Galaxy S II CDMA/LTE so they would have to build an entirely new one instead of rebranding an existing phone like they currently do. Still something like galaxy nexus would have been nice.
5th April 2012, 09:43 PM   |  #58  
Senior Member
San Fernando Valley
Thanks Meter: 56
 
526 posts
Join Date:Joined: Aug 2010
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by BleedsOrangeandBlue


The fact that they've not committed either way isn't necessarily reassuring... it just means they're being intentionally non-committal. Again, if they think devices should stay current for a year and a half, it should already be announced that we're getting it at some point, regardless of whether there is an ETA on it.

I agree with what your saying but you cant blame it all on Samsung. I bet you Samsung can give a ICS build with TouchWiz on it. BUT Verizon says "dont forget to add all this BS". I think if Verizon didn't REQUIRE all that BS to be put in we would get updates a lot quicker. Dont blame just Samsung. Verizon should be blamed to. Again tho you cant expect to get ICS on 512mb ram w/ touchwiz and verizon bloat. Its just not gonna happen. Go donate to JT if you want some ICS..Money always talks
FYI: They did update us to Gingerbread and gave us another update (fp1). Maybe didn't update to ICS but they didn't totally forget us.

---------- Post added at 12:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:41 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by imnuts

Lets say you buy a new computer, knowing that there is going to be an OS update for it in 2 months. Is the OEM that made your computer responsible for updating you to the latest OS? Or even updating any software and drivers to be compatible with it?

Good way of putting that.. agreed
5th April 2012, 11:13 PM   |  #59  
buhohitr's Avatar
Senior Member
Thanks Meter: 1,619
 
5,434 posts
Join Date:Joined: Nov 2011
[QUOTE=jager420;24492088]I agree with what your saying but you cant blame it all on Samsung. I bet you Samsung can give a ICS build with TouchWiz on it. BUT Verizon says "dont forget to add all this BS". I think if Verizon didn't REQUIRE all that BS to be put in we would get updates a lot quicker. Dont blame just Samsung. Verizon should be blamed to. Again tho you cant expect to get ICS on 512mb ram w/ touchwiz and verizon bloat. Its just not gonna happen. Go donate to JT if you want some ICS..Money always talks
FYI: They did update us to Gingerbread and gave us another update (fp1). Maybe didn't update to ICS but they didn't totally forget us.[COLOR="Silver"]

That is what I tried to tell this guy from the beginning. Samsung coders are not sucks. Since they're working under Samsung, there are rules/regulation/compliance and specifications that they must follow. They are not free coders like us (do what ever we please). The point I tried to make is Samsung coders are as smart and they do know their hardware better than anyone here, but their abilities are limited by the Corporation/business BS. I just disagreed with calling someone suck and know nothing about the person.
6th April 2012, 01:55 AM   |  #60  
DirgeExtinction's Avatar
Senior Member
Thanks Meter: 277
 
1,806 posts
Join Date:Joined: Sep 2010
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by jager420

I agree with what your saying but you cant blame it all on Samsung. I bet you Samsung can give a ICS build with TouchWiz on it. BUT Verizon says "dont forget to add all this BS". I think if Verizon didn't REQUIRE all that BS to be put in we would get updates a lot quicker. Dont blame just Samsung. Verizon should be blamed to. Again tho you cant expect to get ICS on 512mb ram w/ touchwiz and verizon bloat. Its just not gonna happen. Go donate to JT if you want some ICS..Money always talks
FYI: They did update us to Gingerbread and gave us another update (fp1). Maybe didn't update to ICS but they didn't totally forget us.

---------- Post added at 12:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:41 PM ----------



Good way of putting that.. agreed

Remember that not even the international carrier unlocked Galaxy S is getting ICS. I'm guessing ICS + TW is too much for it.

Sent from my SCH-I510 using xda premium

Post Reply Subscribe to Thread
Previous Thread Next Thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes