The announcement this article refers to applies to the older Galaxy S 3G and 4G devices. Samsung had previously announced they would be putting ICS on the GSII.
All of the devices covered by this announcement were already launched before the manufacturers and carriers got together with Google to come up with their plan for supporting new devices through 18 months, where capable.
It's disappointing, but it really doesn't contradict what they said earlier in the year.
I thought the GSII was a 4G device? Then why isn't ICS on the GSII? The GN is out and the GSII still has GB (to my knowledge).
I don't trust any of them because they are like politicians--tell you what you want to hear then do what they knew they were going to do in the first place. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. I learned that in Psychology 101.
They are constantly contradicting themselves and T-Mobile's service continues to disintegrate. Just try to switch to the 100 minute, unlimited data/text plan when you have a prepaid plan. I'm still trying to make that happen. They've almost got me ready to bail over it.
It is, but Samsung had already announced its plans for the GSII:
Go back one year in time. The Nexus S came out with Gingerbread on December 16, 2010. How long did it take for phones to be released with Gingerbread on them? The G2x came out in April 2011 with Froyo and didn't get updated to Gingerbread until July 2011. The Sensation came out on June 15, 2011 with Gingerbread out of the box. If I remember correctly, this was the first T-Mobile phone to come out with Gingerbread already on it. I can't remember when the other carriers released their first Gingerbread phones, but I'm pretty sure that it was after March 2011.
In other words, there may be a wait for ICS on the SGS2.
Does Microsoft send you a free update when they release a new version of Windows? Does Adobe send you a free updated when they release a new version of Photoshop? Of course not. They'll sell it to you if you like, but they don't owe you free ugrades for life, and never promised you that. Neither did Samsung or any phone company.
This attitude of entitlement ("me, me, me! and for FREE!") is really annoying......Jake
First of all Microsoft and Adobe produce proprietary software that they charge for. Google produces Android under the open source licensing model. Huge difference. I wouldn't have a problem with Google charging for Android if they could get out timely updates without the carriers getting in the way.
There are any number of open source software products that I can go download for FREE and they get timely updates. If the phone carriers didn't have to be involved, we probably wouldn't be in this mess.
Bang on, steve! If the greedy carriers didn't want to install their spyware and bloatware, this thing would go off like clockwork.
Oh, but hang on a moment...how do all the different screens and processors and speaker systems and microphones and other bits and pieces work with the OS? Darn it, the manufacturer will need to embed their component interfaces into a kernel before all that stuff can interact with the OS.
And each device has to have its own kernel definition, right?
But once that's done, it's home free... except for the different wireless technologies and assigned spectrum that need to be taken into account in the modem....
But what about the radio interface layer where manufacturers, like Samsung, embed and secure proprietary code? Well, I guess that has to be worked in there as well.
But... once all that is done, then...then we get to the greedy carriers who are only interested in loading their spyware and bloatware?
So who gets to handle all this stuff, if it goes wrong? The greedy carriers of course, but no worries there...upgrades can be hugely succesful and trouble-free. And what sort of problem could it amount to anyway? A 90% success rate on something like the original Vibrant would only leave around 100,000 devices with problems requiring technical support. No problem. Don't worry about rigorously testing this stuff, just get it out there because Google have decided to release yet another update.
Darn it, if only it wasn't for those greedy carriers.... :)
stevec5375 wrote: First of all Microsoft and Adobe produce proprietary software that they charge for. Google produces Android under the open source licensing model. Huge difference.
First of all Microsoft and Adobe produce proprietary software that they charge for. Google produces Android under the open source licensing model. Huge difference.
Good point. And you could probably call up Google and ask them to send you the source code for the latest version of Android, and they'd happily send it to you, gratis.
Of course, it wouldn't have all the phone-maker add-ons, or the carrier add-ons, or all the other value-added embelishments that you need to make it work on your phone. So we are back to YOU wanting someone else to spend their own time and money to give YOU something for nothing.
OK Jake, have you turned down an Android update in the past, because Android gave it for free? Or, did you accept the update, then send Google a payment for the update?
I get what you are saying about people's expectations turning into demands. But unless you pay Google for all updates, it seems like you and Steve are in the same boat at the end of the day.
21stnow wrote: OK Jake, have you turned down an Android update in the past, because Android gave it for free? Or, did you accept the update, then send Google a payment for the update? I get what you are saying about people's expectations turning into demands. But unless you pay Google for all updates, it seems like you and Steve are in the same boat at the end of the day.
If they choose to go through the effort to create and deliver an update, of course I'll accept it. They are doing it because they believe the good customer service will be good for their overall business. That's their decision to make. My decision to make is whether I want to switch carriers or not when my contract is up.
Steve and I are in very different boats. He seems to think there is some sort of long-term committment to keep providing him updates, while I know that no such committment exists.
OK, but my comment about you all being in the same boat referred to the last sentence in your previous post to Steve, saying that he wants someone to give him something for nothing. Your post #10 shows that even you will accept something for nothing. If you ask most people, we would go as far to say that we do want something for nothing, we just know that we aren't going to always get it. My point is that you are attacking Steve for being like any other person, especially when past behavior from cellular phone manufacturers indicates that free updates will come over the reasonable life of the product.
Sorry, Steve, as it was not my intent to put words in your mouth. I was responding to Jake's post, where he accused you of wanting something for nothing.
I'm not going to say Samsung screwed up or not...BUT:
When you buy a device, you should buy it for what it has on the day of purchase.
Anticipating updates is not wise. Think Motorola CLIQ XT, Samsung Behold 2, etc.
If you buy a *Nexus* device, then you can complain because Google has been very vocal about future updates on Nexus devices. Any other device (even iPhones for that matter)...don't always expect an update.
That said, Samsung did ask for this mess when they 'entertained' updating GS-1 devices to ICS. They should've never said anything until they had a definitive NO. Very poor PR on their part.
Retrieving data ...