I already did!I blame President Obama
You are only partially right. Once they give the source to HTC, regardless of their intent, it is under the Apache license and that is what governs what HTC does with it. Google can only control the source as far as they keep the source in-house.
It has been released, on the N1, and because of that it is out there. Google doesn't have to give the source to anyone under the Apache license but they did give to HTC. HTC had it before the N1 was even confirmed. They announced they were working on the 2.1 update for the Hero when the N1 was just a rumor and didn't even have a name yet. HTC has all the authority they need, with the Apache license, to release 2.1 and if they wanted to they could release the whole source without any legal recourse from Google. Google may have cut a deal with them not to release an update for a certain amount of time but HTC agreed to it. Once they have the source, since it's Apache licensed, they can do with it as they choose. Any agreements they made are on HTC and not Google. HTC could have said no IF there is an agreement in place.
This is provably wrong. The 2.1 source is out there. It has been released by Google. Why do you think there are already ROMs for the Sprint Hero? The source is on Google's site. Google no longer controls what anyone does with it and they don't even have to release their changes to Android because of the Apache license. Once it's release anyone can do what they want with it including HTC. If HTC made an agreement with Google then the blame is on HTC and not Google. Google asked and HTC said yes. But there is no proof there is any agreement in place and the existence on one is pure conjecture based on a lack of knowledge of the licenses involved.
Open source does matter. You are still speaking from a position of ignorance regarding the way OSS development works. Google has made the source available to the public through their Git repository and at that point they can't stop anyone from using it. Once they handed it to HTC then HTC could use it as they saw fit because of the license involved. So I state again if any agreement were made the blame is on HTC for accepting the agreement. As of Jan 21 the course was available to the public so any agreement HTC made that lasts past that certainly puts the blame solely on HTC. Your whole assumption is based on how closed source development works. OSS development works differently. If code has an open source license and you give it to someone else then you can't stop them from using it however they see fit. HTC has 2.1 and has for a while. If they haven't started working on the update then it's on them and not Google.
You are confused. 2.1 has been released. It is under the Apache license and anyone, including HTC or any other phone manufacture, can use git grab the source, compile it, and put it on their phone. You seem to become more and more confused about how OSS development works. Google only controls what changes, out of the submitted changes, are added to main trunk of the source. They do not control how anyone uses the source as they cannot. It is released to the public, that includes companies, and anyone can use it as they see fit.
Of course it isn't happenstance. Development takes time. HTC likely dedicated more development time to pushing out the N1 than they have to updating the Hero. Both would take the same amount of time given the same amount of equally qualified developers. 2.1 is a new kernel, a new backend, and so on. It is like developing the original load all over again. It's not a simple update. So of course it takes time. So far the time involved isn't all that long by any stretch of the imagination if you know anything about software development. And it is likely not much can be shared between the N1 dev team and the Hero dev team since it's totally different architecture. You are spewing conspiracy theories that make no sense at all when you have any understanding of the way software development works and the OSS licenses involved. You have no evidence at all except your claim of "this makes sense if you think about it" but if anyone thinks about it knows the licenses involved, the history of the way Google does things, and the way software development works then it not longer makes sense at all.
Probably won't be OTA but keep hoping. I for one don't want OTA due to the issues that can happen if you lose connection during re-imaging a phone. This isn't a series of patches. This is brain surgery on your phone. OTA would be dangerous and worst and catastrophic at best.
Without reading this entire thread I have to say it is ridiculous and I will say why.
First off, the moment you purchase the handset you have bought a device as is, with no entitlement to upgrades, that thought is just absolutely ridiculous. The FACT that the OS developer and equipment manufacturer have committed to improving their products with the PROMISE of updates and improvement does not in any way, shape or form mean it is something owed to you.
I would say just sit back and relax, wait for it... if you just can't find it within you to do so, then there are less generous platforms and equipment manufacturers you can donate your $ to.
Without reading this entire thread I have to say it is ridiculous and I will say why.
First off, the moment you purchase the handset you have bought a device as is, with no entitlement to upgrades, that thought is just absolutely ridiculous. The FACT that the OS developer and equipment manufacturer have committed to improving their products with the PROMISE of updates and improvement does not in any way, shape or form mean it is something owed to you.
I would say just sit back and relax, wait for it... if you just can't find it within you to do so, then there are less generous platforms and equipment manufacturers you can donate your $ to.
You are wrong. There is nothing in the agreement that you signed or I signed that promises updated software at all. You may feel like you are entitled to updates but neither Sprint nor HTC is obligated in any legal fashion to provide them. They may be legally liable for security updates, which is akin to your A/V example, but they are not obligated to provide OS upgrades which is more like expecting MS to provide Windows 7 because you purchased a PC with Windows Vista. Keeping the base OS secure is not even a requirement. I can installed Red Hat Enterprise Linux all day long but if I don't pay the subscription fee I cannot get updates even if they are security updates. So there are many models out there regarding OS's and updates but not one in the PC space where you are upgraded to the next major release of the OS for free.
You may have a claim to break your contract with Sprint based on an employee promising something that isn't able to be promised but that's the most you have. None of the agreements you signed guarantee updates. A salesman making a promise doesn't give you much other than the ability for you to break your contract if you could prove the salesman said that. Sprint is bound only by the agreements you signed. Of course we all want the 2.1 update but it is still not a guarantee.
You still appear to not understand OSS licenses. I could take Android, minus the bits you mention below, modify it to my heart's content and release it to the public and there is nothing Google could do to stop me. Android is Open Source, at least until 2.1, and Google only controls what is added to the main source tree. They do not control who uses it or how it is used.
The answer would only be that if the person asked didn't know how open source worked. You bring the Google Mobile Apps into the equation. These are not Android. They are only apps that run on Android. Yes Google controls them but they are not Android. You claim, without proof, that Google made agreements with HTC to hold off on Android 2.1 and that has been disproved simply by the OSS license used for Android. Now you bring in Google's apps which are not the OS.
Wherever it is in the HTC development cycle.
Neither have I but there is significant risk in an OTA update for a full version OS upgrade. I would prefer to have a machine based upgrade even though it would mean I have find a Windows machine to do the upgrade because I don't have one sitting around.
