Yeah, this is not rocket science.
Asking your carrier to provide an update schedule within six months of a release is not rocket science.
It's basic engineering, and basic business and customer care.
Blaming customers for being upset that major firmware upgrades are not being made available in a timely fashion is blaming the wrong party.
Ridiculous may be asking for an update within 30 days.
Not ridiculous is asking for a schedule and planning information within 30 days.
After the whole vibrant update debacle and now this I want to know an I the only one thinking class action lawsuit here? I has to break down and buy the galaxy $2 after all to finally get gingerbread.....500 bucks doesn't just fall out the sky when you have kids and college.........any one been through that kind of mess?
wow can i unpost this thread IMO we should take some positive from this ... at least it's more clear where we are in dev process compared to other phones that are uniquely different from our phones... what i mean is that before sammy posted this page everyone wanted to think we were closer than was ever officially indicated. If anything maybe this will motivate tmo to get on their horse.
It's good to push optimIsm but this it's a problem that's been going on for years. Vibrant supposed to get gingerbread a few months after release.....still no gingerbread. Now this... They purposely did not give vibrant gingerbread so the sales of vibrant 4g would be uninterrupted......questionable very questionable...indeed.
HTC Amaze is getting the ICS, if it didn't already. The HTC Amaze, and the Galaxy S2 were release on the same day. T-Mobile is just dragging their feet yet again.
No one denies the fact that how the Vibrant was handled was a mess. The silent treatment is T-Mobile's response to that. We can't go back and undo what happened. But let's consider what has changed since Samsung's press release.
1. We still don't have a release date. Didn't have one yesterday either.
2. The other carries don't have a release date either. Didn't have one yesterday either.
What we do know is Samsung is working closely with T-Moblie to update eligible devices. The newest Samsung devices will be updated.
Samsung is a moving machine. The numbers they put out are incredible. HTC cannot match Samsung in shear numbers so it's only logical that HTC will and has to do anything and everything to play catch up. And right now HTC is in a prime position to do so.
And I am one of those customers who will buy HTC when I update. If HTC can get ICS to their phones on T-Mobile faster than Samsung, then I will go with the manufacturer that supports their devices more.
yet you sound surprised... anyway... my guess is that they won't release ICS until well after GSIII has locked in the next wave of customers for 2 years so really all I'm hopin for is a leaked rom at this point.
"No one has a release date." Nice. That's true enough. But at least the other carriers have a specific list of devices that will get the update. T-Mobile is the only carrier that will not provide that information.
Once my terms are up, I plan to go carrier independent and will simply buy my phones outright. I hope others will do the same. The carriers have a way of truly draining customers by selling phones with "subsidies" in order to require the inclusion of expensive data plans. When you do the math, you will see you bought the phone without subsidies several times over.
Smart money says "just buy it now." The only way to win this game is not to play. The i9100 has ICS on it now. And the argument about "different hardware" and all that only proves the carriers' dedication to the "vendor lock-in" business model. You get a carrier-specific phone, you will get carrier-specific service.
All I want is WiFi for data and GSM for voice...it's all I need. It's all most people need. And it's ridiculously cheaper to go that way. The sooner the public wakes up to that fact, the better for all.
But what difference does it make whether they release a name? You know full and well that "eligible devices" will include The Galaxy S II Titanium, White and Blaze, As well as any newer device that are on the near horizion.
The difference is whether or not a consumer, no a customer, can make an informed decision about how and where to spend the dollars which are still in too short supply. We are still in a financial crisis and most people are still living with less than they have before the crisis was annouced. (The crisis started well before the announcements were made.)
I don't know anything "full well." If they don't make an official statement to that end, then we don't know. What we do know is that most businesses have already made their decisions. Historically, the reasons for silence (silence we have seen before) are because they want to avoid the response from their customers and the lack of new customers.
I listened and waited for updates to my Vibrant. They never came. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me... and shame on anyone else who is taken in by it as well. If T-Mobile is changing its tune since the last thing, then why does the song sound so familiar?
But here's what we do know "full well." The Galaxy S 3 has been announced and is coming soon. A story from two days ago confirms it for one carrier and we know all others will follow. Their energies and attention will be on the new devices and on getting new customers. We know this because they have always done this... all carriers. We should all know what to expect. That history has repeated itself more than once... more than twice. They have no incentive to change the way they have been playing the game. It has been working quite well for them all this time, so why would they change? And when GS3 comes to T-Mobile, the biggest percentage of people right here will be in line waiting to sell their committment to spend over $1200/year in service plans for a $200-$300 discount on a device which will never get updated.
The US carriers are always "last or never." Why do you suppose that is? We don't have to guess. It's because vendor lock-in is the way the game is played here. It's not played that way in other parts of the world... it's not ALLOWED. And so their behaviors are different.
The short answer to your question, once again, is "making an informed decision." Smart people want to make those... even stupid people want to make those. But in the absense of information, we have to look at a larger picture to see what's going on. So first, look to your carrier. Next, look to your carrier's competition. After that, look to the world market. The pictures become much clearer when you do.
How did this become an economics class? We're talking about an update to a phone. Not world economies. But if that is what floats your boat so be it. Back to the point I'm trying to make, the Galaxy S II T989 will get updated to Android 4.0. Beyond that I don't know. Oh and back to Economics. Galaxy S III is released in the world markets first. So why wouldn't they get the updates first. They have the every incentive not to buy but they do.
It became an economics class (and it's ALL economics on the carrier side) when people start asking "why."
Is the answer to "why" to be found elsewhere? Nope. We're talking about a business making business decisions. So if people seek to understand why a business behaves as it does, then people need to look at what motivates business.
People get angry because they are frustrated. They get frustrated because they don't understand the rules of the game. They "thought they knew" because they believed what they were led to believe. But they are not told everything are they? And when expectations (hopes, really) are not met, the human response is frustration and anger. The game is controlled by the carriers. The carriers will always act in their best interests. Their interests are the same as the interests of all other businesses.
We are talking about why the update isn't announced. And we're asking why. To understand that, we have to understand motivation. And that motivation, for a business is... guess what? Money, profits, economics.
The carriers exist in an ecosystem where a certain percentage of customers move from carrier to carrier. They know this rule. They also recognize their "core customers" -- the ones who have been with them for longer terms. They want to keep them. Their incentives, however, are more focused on "new customers" and "new device sales." They can't focus on those things while also taking care of their long-term customers. (Ideally, they should be making long-term customers of their new customers, but THAT is expensive and therefore decreases their quarterlies... their short-term reports.) They have to maintain a balance. To create a balance, they trap their new customers with long-term contracts. To keep them happy is simply too expensive, so a trap or a cage will do just fine for their purposes.
The key to winning or even surviving a game is know the rules and what your opponents are doing. Is it enough to know how to play blackjack or is it better to know how the house plays blackjack? When you learn the house rules, you will better know what you're up against.
For most people, "thinking hurts" and they don't want to do it. You seem to advocate that people avoid thinking through the situation. T-Mobile exists because people give their money to it. People keep giving their money to it because of the return they get from T-Mobile. The problem is about making long-term customers. They can't do that unless they can tame or trap their customers... to domesticate their market. And what does every trap need? Bait! A Lure! "The next new shiny" is the bait... the lure. And once they have you trapped, they don't need to worry about caring and feeding. They run in cycles. By the time the contract [trap] is up, the next new shiny is there waiting... the new bait, the new lure... at the gates of the next trap.
But most people will never see this. And of those who do, they won't begin to understand it... because "thinking hurts." They just want their new shiny and will rant and rave when they don't get it... and worse, are prevented from getting it -- prevented by their contract restrictions. An angry caged animal is still a caged animal... a captive... a source of income for the next two years.
Sometimes, the best way to win is to know the rules. Sometimes, it takes more... you have to know how the other players play. Sometimes, the only way to win is not to play. Most of the time, "the house always wins." I have reached that third and fourth conclusion and because of that, I am forming a strategy of how not to play. And that strategy is simple: Buy your service and your devices separately. Make informed choices on each... separately.
Alot of your explanations became redundant. Nevertheless as I said you have to choose your own path and what works for you. Because I'm still a Military member, the rules never applied to me. I stayed with T-Mobile out of a sheer satisfaction with service and devices. Until recently with the dissemination of information concerning Android and iPhones has the public become "smarter" or at least more well informed. I remember a time when you got a phone, kept it until it no long worked period. Then you looked for a new phone. Now we feel as if we're entitled to updates, ultimately this is what this is about. For some reason unknown to me, we get emotionally connected to our device and the technology it brings. Let's get back to the core reason we buy new things or want new things. Features vs Benefits. I want go down the list as I like to get to the point.
But there are tons of Features that the vast majority of users will never use. So they won't reap the Benefits that the shiny new things offer. In my personal life and professional life I'm Tech support. I show people new things that are Features on their, phones that they never know existed. Then they see the benefit of the features their phone comes with. So are they looking for the updates, probably not. Will they want it because they heard about it. Absolutely. Will the Average person go to message boards, technology blogs, and support forums to find out and debate about updates or economics? Never. We the well informed, complainers, moaners and gripers are the 25 percenters (if that's a word) are the ones that fill the bloggesphere with our discontent because we didn't get an update when we felt we should have.
In this thread:
US: ICS was never promised to us.
Me: I agree. We heard it from sales people. We heard it from support people. But it was never promised. It needs to be in writing and in public.
AA: Try another launcher!
Me: That fixes the bugs/vulnerabilities and all that which concerns you.
AA: None of the carriers have given a date! So what?
Me: But what makes T-Mobile stand out is that it refuses to provide a list of what WILL get updates and, by elimination, what will not. Customers and consumers need this information to make decisions.
AA: This information came from Samsung, not T-Mobile.
Me: Samsung delivered information as it was given to them by the carriers. Samsung indicated that T-Mobile has not supplied the information everyone wants.
AA: ...but hardware is different! They can't just...
Me: Yes, we know... the hardware was made different... by design and intent. This is "vendor lock-in."
AA: Vibrant was a disappointment. There is no release date from anyone.
Me: Once again, this isn't exactly about "release dates" but confirmation/affirmation that our expensive handheld computers will receive a much-awaited software update. The others gave it, T-Mobile did not.
AA: You *know* SGS2 will be on the list right? What difference does it make?
Me: No, we don't *know* it. Unclespoon asserts that it was never promised. Despite that most of us have heard that it will happen, I have to admit that I have never seen it in writing... have you?
AA: Why are you explaining things in detail? Do Not Want. The point is T959 *will* get updated. *Faith!*
Me: Really? Do you know something we don't? Have you seen something in writing? ("But it just makes sense!") Yeah, I know what should make sense, but all that blathering I made above and below? It's to explain why it doesn't make sense for them to willingly upgrade the device's software.
AA: More explanations; not helping; redundant. Also, the rules don't apply to me like it does to everyone else. [and, of course, I only speak of what applies to me expecting that it applies to everyone else somehow] People have an inappropriate sense of entitlement anyway and shouldn't expect updates at all. You're all moaners and gripers.
Me: As a former member of the US Navy, I know... I know... lots of exceptions and exemptions for miitary members. These are not just "phones." They are handheld computers. [Try running a Windows computer on the internet without software updates. You wouldn't would you?] They are also being exploited for private data collection and for other purposes harmful to the user/owner. Software updates are necessary to resolve most of those issues. People want ICS for a variety of reasons but mostly because they expect that newer will be better, safer, more secure, extend battery life and give us all 3 stars on Angry birds.
This thread is about people wanting T-Mobile to just tell us whether or not T989 will get updated. "When?" will be the question that follows.
"...and that's all I have to say about that." --Forrest Gump
Retrieving data ...