Does google need to be held accountable?

[powerkiter]

"i NEED 2.1 update as it will offer me z, y or z performance increase"

Could that not be due to the fact that we know what we will get?

After getting the phone I went mad on research as I had never even heard of "Android" before I looked into getting the X10

So I found that SE had backported the best of 2.1 into 1.6 and for that I gave the due credit and after my mates getting Desires and the gf getting a galaxy Portal on 2.1 I could see no real difference and put that down to the backporting from 2.1, I could be wrong as I have never seen a stock 1.6 OS.

So all I know 2.1 will bring to the X10 is a faster running phone, this was after watching Monkey Kick on my phone and my mates X10. Again that could be down to the Desire has more RAM but the monkey kicked the ball 3 times on the Desire to every 1-2 kicks on the X10.

Also battery life as again every phone that I have seen run 2.1 the battery would last many hours more than my X10, so again I could just be speculating but all the above I have been touting on here for months so maybe a few people read my posts and taken to my musings to be true.

Which I hope are true

 

[MrWomble]

However way you look at it, the input of other users has taken this away from the core point of the original poster - that Google should step in and HAVE WORDS WITH SONY so that we the end user get 2.1 now - instead of allowing the manufacturers to use the software as they see fit

Now we've tried debating using different analogys - car servicing, windows 7 - both of which kinda got lost - the fact that everybody that replied seems to think that they would go international with their car and the fact that people seem to think that other consumer products don't have similar traits

(just to clarify for personal reasons)

1 i buy a car from a ford dealer
2 a year later i require a service but do not like the customer service given at that dealer
3 (according to those in here) we go straight to the international head office to complain
4 my solution, i try again after making my complaint known, or i try another dealer, or another garage, or a local mechanic, or i buy the manual and try to do it myself

in other words there are logical steps that need to be taken IN ORDER rather than taking things straight to the top

yes google are probably monitoring this situation, will it be worrying them, probably not - they have the OS - its growing in popularity by millions a month - its eating into RIM, APPLE and SYMBIAN on a near daily basis

if Sony never released the 2.1 update but did release a 2.1/2.2/3.0 phone in the next 6 months will google care about us X10 users - no

so why on earth are we even debating the point - we will NEVER EVER get what we want - the reason - it costs money for companys to update and unless its financially viable - its not worth the effort

 

[MrWomble]

Could that not be due to the fact that we know what we will get?

Again, someone now beginning to see what my point is

we have the X10, we know what it does, we know the difference (or lack of) between 1.6 and 2.1

so why get so hell bent for leather - Take the Original Poster

Like this

first off,, i bought it with the staements made by SE that and when updates are coming to no avail as of yet

And THIS

EVERYONE specified more for then this phone then what it has, and 2.1 isnt even going to give it what it needs

and FINALLY THIS

and maybe a delay doesnt bother you,, but it does me extremely as i want and need skype on my phone.

How on earth can you say that you bought the phone knowing it was running on 1.6 because you knew it was going to get an update in the future - then complain because you can't use skype when you know its not compatible

Then jump up and down like a screaming kid claiming that google need to get involved just because you are not happy - this is what i meant by the whole I WANT 2.1 NOW attitude

please remember these are all quotes from the original poster, and the reasoning behind his debate - personally i don't see the point

 

[CuBz]

I think it's a good idea to give up, some people can't take it when they're wrong. Besides, everyone has a different opinion, so there is no point arguing constantly

 

[MrWomble]

I think it's a good idea to give up, some people can't take it when they're wrong. Besides, everyone has a different opinion, so there is no point arguing constantly

yeah well its kinda pointless when everyone forgets what it is they are actually debating on - but hey it was a good blow out

not a bad way to end a

 

[powerkiter]

@ Northernale, you should have gone with 3 for your phone as it comes preinstaled with skype and after I rooted the app was gone so I went to 3's mobile web page and re-installed the app.

May be if you do the sim unlock and get a 3 pay as you go sim then you might be able to get the Skype app?

 

[Bob Maxey]

If you researched the phone before purchase, why on earth do you own it if you're not happy with it, as you don't seem to be even the slightest happy it. As for the sales people, everyone knows not to listen to everything a salesman or women says, as their job is to try and sell as many as they can, so they will say anything to sell you something. As a former salesman i know this, as I had to say anything to try and get people to do things, and even when they originally didn't want to, most of them would in the end. But it's a common fact that most people should know

OK, then what do you make of this: I researched a phone for a friend. She wanted no contracts, the ability to check the weather (she rides a vintage bike) and the ability to send and receive email. Perhaps a few moments on the web.

She bought a Virgin Mobile phone because everything she read and could learn about the phone told her for the money, it was a good deal and no contracts. That is why I bought a second VM phone which I used for a few months and got rid of it.

The dealers said full web access. The VM ads suggest full web access. Lots of fans of the product on Twitter where nothing is wrong with the phone, and lots of fans on the web.

Problem was, the web access was limited in that she could not install other apps, ringtones, wall papers or anything that did not specifically come from VM. Games cost 2.50 (many, perhaps not all) and you had a 2.50 per month rental on the games you bought.

We do our research and quite often, we still get burned. If VM had made it clear that if you buy the phone, you will not have access to the world of applications; some people might not want to buy.

Now I know that cheap phones and plans come with strings. That said, I find few flaws with Criket Mobile.

Everyone says do our research, but I DEFY YOU to name one single product manufactured today that doesn

 

[CuBz]

I've leave you lot to argue, I cannot be bothered with this petty debate, it's getting rather pathetic, and childish. It goes from one subject to another

As I said earlier, everyone has their own opinion, that's fair enough. Lets just leave it at that

 

[MrWomble]

OK, then what do you make of this: I researched a phone for a friend. She wanted no contracts, the ability to check the weather (she rides a vintage bike) and the ability to send and receive email. Perhaps a few moments on the web.

She bought a Virgin Mobile phone because everything she read and could learn about the phone told her for the money, it was a good deal and no contracts. That is why I bought a second VM phone which I used for a few months and got rid of it.

The dealers said full web access. The VM ads suggest full web access. Lots of fans of the product on Twitter where nothing is wrong with the phone, and lots of fans on the web.

Problem was, the web access was limited in that she could not install other apps, ringtones, wall papers or anything that did not specifically come from VM. Games cost 2.50 (many, perhaps not all) and you had a 2.50 per month rental on the games you bought.

We do our research and quite often, we still get burned. If VM had made it clear that if you buy the phone, you will not have access to the world of applications; some people might not want to buy.

Now I know that cheap phones and plans come with strings. That said, I find few flaws with Criket Mobile.

Everyone says do our research, but I DEFY YOU to name one single product manufactured today that doesn

 

[northernale1]

i was not going to reply to this thread anymore,, until i read this whole article

Top10.com » News

 

[Bob Maxey]

One thing i could pull you up on - you haven't stated what phone you bought, or what applications you're trying to install on it

LG Rumor Touch running on Virgin Mobile. As for which specific apps, all apps not sold by VM. Ditto wallpapers, ringtones, games.

This is a common complaint and it is widely discussed on various VM forums. I discovered the problem is a block put in place called a "Java Block." I learned this when I became curious and I wanted to know why we were getting constant "Access Denied" errors.

Was this problem discussed in the fine print, perhaps somewhere. Am I responsible for not reading the fine print? Yes indeed. Am I pissed at VM, well yes, but I understand the why.

The assumption I made was I had full and unfettered access to the web. I can access the web on a VM phone, but if you think full access means being able to DL stuff like better email appls, then no, VM certainly limits access.

So I jumped ship and went with an Android phone.

Bob Maxey

 

[MrWomble]

LG Rumor Touch running on Virgin Mobile. As for which specific apps, all apps not sold by VM. Ditto wallpapers, ringtones, games.

This is a common complaint and it is widely discussed on various VM forums. I discovered the problem is a block put in place called a "Java Block." I learned this when I became curious and I wanted to know why we were getting constant "Access Denied" errors.

Was this problem discussed in the fine print, perhaps somewhere. Am I responsible for not reading the fine print? Yes indeed. Am I pissed at VM, well yes, but I understand the why.

The assumption I made was I had full and unfettered access to the web. I can access the web on a VM phone, but if you think full access means being able to DL stuff like better email appls, then no, VM certainly limits access.

So I jumped ship and went with an Android phone.

Bob Maxey

Well i suppose some would differ in opinion - to me - full internet access is being able to access sites without restriction (hardware and software shortcomings not withstanding)

i.e. BBC, ITV, Local football team site etc etc - downloads i don't class as part of my "full internet access" as again i personally believe that downloads are a independant feature and again is handset dependant - though TBH i have never been a huge fan of VM (except their cable TV service)

 

[Bob Maxey]

Well i suppose some would differ in opinion - to me - full internet access is being able to access sites without restriction (hardware and software shortcomings not withstanding)

i.e. BBC, ITV, Local football team site etc etc - downloads i don't class as part of my "full internet access" as again i personally believe that downloads are a independant feature and again is handset dependant - though TBH i have never been a huge fan of VM (except their cable TV service)

A matter of perspective, I suppose.

But restrictions on what can and cannot be downloaded does suggest that you do not have full access to the web. Suppose you bought one of Virgin Mobile's soon to be released Android phones and you can only download apps from VM. You would not tolerate that.

I am not sure VM can or could restrict the market access, anyway.

Bob Maxey

 

[MrWomble]

i was not going to reply to this thread anymore,, until i read this whole article

Oh come on - on a website called Top10.com ? Is this like a reliable journo - but again - all the article is really saying is:-

THIS PHONE DOESN'T HAVE THE LATEST SOFTWARE OS

The comments interest me the most though - as out of the 4 (i removed 1 cos it is a twitter post) oh an i should also remove one poster who thinks Gingerbread is OS 2.5 and not 3.0 HAHAHA (seriously 3 reliable comments in 4 days - is this what we class as a reliable journalistic site)

anyhow - 1 agrees SE is out of line and 2 make comment that it doesn't matter that the phone is on 1.6 because it DOES WHAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO

But i love this one in support of it doesn't matter

Please. I just got this phone, and I love it. I have ZERO complaints. It works great, sounds great, and looks great. Declaring a phone is "finished" because of some ridiculous operating system non-issue is ridiculous. Pull your head out of your backside and realize that nobody but tech columnists and "have-to-get-the-newest-thing" gadget geeks care about that kind of minutiae

look back at post #103 in this thread and the comments i've quoted by NORTHERNALE1 and its quite clear - the phone does everything its supposed to - he just wants it to do more (skype as a point of reference) - so does that him a "have-to-get-the-newest-thing" gadget geek ??

But what makes me really laugh - and i mean LOL or even ROTFL and occassionally LMFAO is when people say that this phone is going to be out of date, even after the update

The reality is though, that with 2.1 it really won't do that much more as a phone, because even when SE releases the 2.1 update, it will not affect the way our phones run - it will still send SMS the same, EMAILS, CALLS, TWITTER updates - all the same - all CONTACTS will be stored the same and i believe WIFI and GPS will work exactly the same too. As will all currently installed APPS

So when they say out of date - simply they mean its not the latest - its not that the functions you have that are out of date - but on that basis even if SE gave us 2.2 next month, when a handset with 3.0 Gingerbread comes out, we'd still be out of date, and people will still complain about it

So as a conclusion, i offer this statement to all the 60 Million people (ish) in the UK

If you aint driving a 59 or 60 plate car - you're out of date
If you don't have a PC running win 7 - you're out of date
And if ya house aint been built in the last few years - you're out of date

Oh and just to point out, i was in a conference today with a MULTI-NATIONAL company - their PC's - running windows XP PRO - fancy telling them their company is out of date ??

 

[MrWomble]

A matter of perspective, I suppose.

But restrictions on what can and cannot be downloaded does suggest that you do not have full access to the web. Suppose you bought one of Virgin Mobile's soon to be released Android phones and you can only download apps from VM. You would not tolerate that.

I am not sure VM can or could restrict the market access, anyway.

Bob Maxey

No but the OS of the phone restricts what you can and can't download - ie Android 1.6 phones can't run 2.1 apps so they don't appear in your market

As with the older phone because it was running a more basic OS you DID have full internet access as in you could access all pages that your hardware permitted - the apps are not classed as internet access as they are coming from a service provider

but as i say - this is only the way i see it based on UK market

 

[Bob Maxey]

Let's say you build a phone company. You promise unlimited access and your customers discover that they do not have the ability to do things we Android users demand, how can that be full access?

Yes, you can access the world wide web. But if you cant do those things we love to do on the web; if you cant DL an improved email app for example, is that truly full access? To me, full access is access with no restrictions. Limited access is when you start saying no, you cant DL this or that.

Cheers,

Bob Maxey

 

[MrWomble]

Let's say you build a phone company. You promise unlimited access and your customers discover that they do not have the ability to do things we Android users demand, how can that be full access?

Yes, you can access the world wide web. But if you cant do those things we love to do on the web; if you cant DL an improved email app for example, is that truly full access? To me, full access is access with no restrictions. Limited access is when you start saying no, you cant DL this or that.

Cheers,

Bob Maxey

I fully understand that point you make, but realistically - what you wanted to do, was not access the internet - it was to change something built into the phones ROM

which if not advertised by LG or VM as a feature of the phone and its OS then you were not short changed.

Just quickly looking at the phone details i would look at it as a phone only - especially as its classed as a NON-SMARTPHONE - more a feature phone

app downloads i reserve for Smartphones - Android (Market), iPhone (iTunes), Nokia S60 (ovi store) - i get no indication from the specs of the LG that it would support app download

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WKkjZR4Y5U

 

[Bob Maxey]

I fully understand that point you make, but realistically - what you wanted to do, was not access the internet - it was to change something built into the phones ROM

which if not advertised by LG or VM as a feature of the phone and its OS then you were not short changed.

Just quickly looking at the phone details i would look at it as a phone only - especially as its classed as a NON-SMARTPHONE - more a feature phone

app downloads i reserve for Smartphones - Android (Market), iPhone (iTunes), Nokia S60 (ovi store) - i get no indication from the specs of the LG that it would support app download

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WKkjZR4Y5U

The Rumor Touch, as offered by Virgin Mobile, supports applications like Opera, various social networking apps, games, and others. Lots of apps in their "store" but you are limited to paid apps only and no ability to DL other apps that are written for the Touch. Forget what kind of phone it is, if it will support email access, games, the web, music, it matters little to some users. It might be a smart phone, but it is still capable of doing many of the same things your Android is capable of.

If it were better behaved, I might still use it. Give me a simpler way to do what I want, and I would not have gotten my Android Phone. Seems to me that many of my complaints are reasons often cited by those that Root their Android phones. They do not like being locked out and they want full access to install apps and remove the crapware.

I was/am drawn to the Zio partially because it is cool. But in my world, cool is last on the list and functionality is at the top.

Now, there are a few hacks for running "unapproved" apps on the Rumor. They involve creating special files from .jar files in a special folder on the SD card. This is not a great solution because it requires lots of effort that most users wont do.

My point is simply this: when you sell a phone to the public and you suggest that they have full access to the web as well as access to applications, games, etc., the public will assume that full access means just that, full access.

Not mad at VM, just a little peeved that they promote their phones and services in a way that is somewhat misleading.

Bob Maxey

 

[MrWomble]

Not mad at VM, just a little peeved that they promote their phones and services in a way that is somewhat misleading.

Bob Maxey

I think the point you're missing is this - FULL INTERNET ACCESS is not equal to INSTALL ANY APP YOU WANT

it just means you can access the internet

but huge kudos and a +1 on companies marketing strategies - will wholly agree on that

 

[CuBz]

Wow a different argument in here every day

 

[MrWomble]

Wow a different argument in here every day

More like a logical discussion - or an attempt at

 

[Roze]

This is a very interesting (though long) read. I would just like to remind everyone to keep the debate civilized and on topic. If it gets too heated, remember, this is only an online forum and we are here for the same reason. We all enjoy our phone and Android and want to discuss various topics relating to our experience with similar people.

I'll put in my $0.02 when I finish reading the thread.

-Roze-

 

[BenjaminJC]

Thanks, Roze.

As for Google: They tried to make phones. It didn't work out too well. The onus falls upon the consumer to educate himself before a purchase, just as it should with nearly any important buy.

That's not to say that companies should not be consumer-focused and attempt to please their customers, but rather to say that the best way for buyers to keep companies honest and innovating is to be savvy.

 

[MrWomble]

This is a very interesting (though long) read. I would just like to remind everyone to keep the debate civilized and on topic. If it gets too heated, remember, this is only an online forum and we are here for the same reason. We all enjoy our phone and Android and want to discuss various topics relating to our experience with similar people.

I'll put in my $0.02 when I finish reading the thread.

-Roze-

I look forward to ready your $0.02 in 2012 then lol

 

[Roze]

I look forward to ready your $0.02 in 2012 then lol

Ah, hush you, Mr. Smartie pants

Didn't realize that the discussion ended and the thread kind of went OT -_-;;;

Most of what I'm about to say have already been said (just finished reading the thread). I have hidden most of my post as it's bloody long and it contains my thoughts on Android and Google and the OEM partners (in general)

Spoiler

SHOULD Google be held accountable on how its OS worked on by its OEM Partners (phone manufacturer)? I think they SHOULD, because it’s their baby and they should have a standard of how it should be used.

Now, does Google NEED to be held accountable? No. Google is a software company, it wrote the OS and made it open source platform so that OTHERS can take what it has made and implement it AS HOW THEY SEE FIT. Only caveat is that the OEM Partners need to be within the terms of the license (Apache Software License) that they agreed to when they signed to use Android on their phones. So far all of the OEM Partners have abide to what Google has set out in their license. Now from what I see of how this work, if the manufacturer does what the license says and break no rules, they can basically do the hell they want with Android. That includes locking the boot loader, making it harder to root, skinning a UI that takes them longer to update, add crapwares etc. And we do see this as a trend that all of the OEM Partners seem to embrace (HTC and Motorola included).

Again i will re-iterate Google's policy - that ANDROID remain an open source OS - as soon as you start dishing out rules and regulations and minimum specifications you take away from everything the philosophy of open source

I agree with you on this Womble.

Since the OEM Partners can do as they see fit to Android (within the license terms), we have been noticing a growing issue. This issue is fragmentation of the OS. There are phones that are still running 1.5!!! Users on outdated OS, cannot experience most of the latest and newest games out available. Developers must write different versions of their application so that all users on various platforms can use their apps. What we’ve noticed is that more and more only focus on 2.1 or higher, now. Makes sense, at the moment, 75% of phones runs on Android 2.0 or higher.

The thing with an open source platform, is that it's OPEN. If Google starts telling OEM partners what they can and CANNOT do, that takes away from the openess and freedom of Android. Google will be no better than Apple.

As a member has already mentioned, Google has said that with Gingerbread or Honeycomb, their goal is to reduce this fragmentation by creating an OS that makes OEM UI skins redundant.

In my opinion, Google should be able to let any manufacturer do what they want with the OS, then the consumer can decide whether they want to purchase it or not. If someone buys the phone knowing what the OS is like, then they're obviously happy with what they get. But too many people assume, then blame SE, or even Google for that matter, when in fact it is only themselves who are to blame.

@ Cubz: And this is what Google is currently doing

This is a great interview article with Rubin on Android OS that I’m taking a few quotes from:

PCMag.com: We have all these [Android] versions out there, people are still releasing phones on 1.6 … how can you guys give developers and consumers a consistent experience when there are all of these different versions and different overlays going out there?
Rubin: I think the OEMs seem to learn pretty quickly what sells and what doesn't sell. I'm pretty happy with the pace at which we're innovating. If we come out with a 2.3 or a 3.0, that's going to be state of the art, because it's going to have new functionality and new innovations that all the OEMs are going to want to adopt. The OEMs who don't want to do the work to adopt the latest release are just going to see the impact on what consumers want. We're actually in the middle of an interesting time because we're actually seeing whether consumers recognize the value of each one of these releases. So far it looks like they do. So I think OEMs will adjust their strategies and their time to market for these new releases accordingly.

People have been saying that the freedom of Android has basically meant that the carriers are free to screw the consumers.
If I were to release an operating system that I claimed was open and that forced everybody to make [phones] all look the same and all support very narrow features and functionality, the platform wouldn't win. It wouldn't win because the OEMs have a lot of value to bring and the carriers have a lot of value to bring, and they need a vehicle by which to put their interesting differentiating features on these things. Every phone shouldn't look like every other phone. If that was the case there would just be one SKU, right? The whole idea here is just to figure out what consumers want, build phones and tailor them to what consumers want.

But you guys do have minimum standards for Android devices. So why not say you can't build devices that don't accept non-market applications? Where do you draw the line?
Well, it's tough to draw the line, and we think about that a lot. First of all, we don't like drawing lines. We like making exceptions, and we learn a lot in the process. … The point of being open is that I've given up control of what can be put on phones, and put it in the hands of everybody in the community.

Source: Exclusive Q&A: Google's Andy Rubin Talks Android | News & Opinion | PCMag.com

So, basically the consumers vote with their wallets on the direction of how the OS go
I hope I have made my points why Google is not held accountable for the actions of their OEM partners.

And in case you missed it we did actually draw a conclusion earlier on tonight - that no matter what anyone thinks - as an open source OS telco's will put their own stuff on there - if we want google to start controlling it then we'll get no better than what the iphone offered, no customization, no choice

It's an open ended debate, there's no real 'right or wrong' answer and it should be OK for others to put their comments that agree or disagree with the OP. People that joined the debate later on in the thread might have a more to add or take a different spins on the topic.