Android 
So, another Mobile World Congress comes to a close, and another round of devices for us to desire, save up, rationalize and justify buying for ourselves have been released into the wild.
Something struck me about a number of these devices:
Lets take them individually, shall we?
Remember the Xperia X10? Yes, the one that was announced in November 2009? Yes, that was 15 months back. What if you take that, shrink the screen size down by 0.3 inches, slap on a front facing camera and a newer version of the same Operating System. Apparently, you get a brand new phone! Never mind that the old phone is just as, if not more capable of running newer software (Android 2.3).
Some cell phone manufacturers argue that the mobile industry evolves so fast that it doesn’t make sense upgrading phones past a certain point because hardware requirements increase. I don’t get how someone who blew up a wad of cash on what was once SE’s best phone, need to upgrade the same phone just to get a newer version of the free open source operating system known as Android.
I also find it ridiculous that phone companies dangle a front facing camera as a huge upgrade. I mean come on, the Nokia 6680 had a front facing camera way back in 2005. Shouldn’t it be there without saying by now?
The HTC Incredible S is basically a GSMized HTC Droid Incredible, with a slightly larger screen, a slightly faster radio, a slightly upgraded processor and a slightly larger battery.
The HTC Desire S is what you get when you take an HTC Desire, add a bit more RAM ‘n ROM, WiFi ‘n’, and that golden front facing camera.
Also, what is up with everyone adding S to the end of their device names? When Samsung Galaxy did it it was fine. When Nexus S copied, it was understandable. Now its just a bit lame.
Samsung Galaxy S II
The sucessor to Samsung’s fate changing, game changing, wildly sucessful Galaxy S series, the Galaxy S II.
As a user of the old Galaxy S, I wonder if Samsung honestly wants me to upgrade from my current phone to a phone that has:
-A 0.3 inch larger screen.
-SAMOLED Plus instead of the plain old Super Active Matrix Organic Light Emitting Diode screen I have to suffer through.
-A TWO megapixel front facing camera which I can never use, instead of my current VGA camera which I have never used.
-Touchwiz 4.0 which I can install an alternate launcher over the second I get the phone, instead of Touchwiz 3.0
-A dual core processor to speed up my phone because my 1GHz Hummingbird Processor just doesn’t cut it.
–8 whole megapixels instead of my measly 5.
-1080p Full High Definition on a 4.3 inch device instead of 720p
While it may seem like a lot of upgrades, the fact remains that most of them are BARELY going to make any difference to the user. Which apps out there would not run on my 1GHz processor and would need a dual core?
( Anandtech) did a bunch of benchmarks, and the Galaxy S actually has a better Open GL ES 2.0 score than its successor.
Since these marginal upgrades aren’t enough to convince users to upgrade, what do the companies do?
That’s right, they put spanking new versions of Android on the newer devices, and off handedly say that yes, the old devices will also be getting upgraded in the future sometime.
Considering the fact that the Samsung Epic 4G and the Fascinate, two US Galaxy S Variants are still languishing on Android 2.1, we can safely assume Android 2.3 is not exactly just around the corner for these devices? This way they make impatient users shell out hard earned money for something they should already be getting.
I think that disgusting tactics like these are making a mockery of Google’s Open Source Android, as the only people they seem to be benefiting are greedy companies.
Well what could be the solution?
I have several -
1) If a phone’s hardware supports the upgrade, it has to be given. There needs to be a regulating body that gets on the company or operator’s back to ensure they push the update in a reasonable amount of time. What is reasonable? I know what’s NOT reasonable. Giving a software update almost 6 months late in an industry governed by Moore’s Law is not reasonable.
2) Stock Android till you work your crapware.
One of the reasons it takes so long for a company to push a new update to their phones is that they takes months on end to fit their custom UI into the phone. Motoblur, TouchWiz, Sense, MediaScape and others.
Google needs to make sure that before starting this, they push a stock Android update of the newer version out to their phones. Once they finish with their custom skin, push that as an optional update to the phone.
While stock android may not have the bling of your own skin, I as a consumer deserve to be given the option of having it.
3) Support independent developers!
A little while ago, the custom ROM legend Cyanogen pushed a Release Candidate of CM7, based on the spanking new Android 2.3 Gingerbread, for 17 devices. Sadly, a majority of them were for US centric HTC devices. While I’m feeling left out, I totally get that a group of developers can’t possibly support all the devices out there. However, I know that given enough incentive and the means, they just as well could.
Let’s take for example the Galaxy S series. They have sold over 10 million devices.
Out of these 10 million devices, if even only ONE percent of the people who bought it, pay the very reasonable sum of say $5/INR 250, that comes to $500,000. I don’t know exactly how much it costs to develop a new version of a software for a phone, but I THINK that its safe to assume that half a mill will be enough to hire a bunch of talented developers to come out with a stable version of Android 2.3 for each and every Galaxy S variant out there. Now ask yourself, is it better to contribute a sum as small as $5, or would you rather blow up $500+ on a whole new device?
One problem that comes with this scenario is that a lot of people aren’t comfortable with installing custom software on their phones. As a user who does not suffer from the same phobia, I know that my warranty does not get voided as long as I know how to switch back to the stock firmware. Also, I know that absolutely anyone can flash a custom ROM onto their device with a clear enough set of instructions on video, audio or just a well written read me. The development team can also use some of the $500k to keep some support staff to help people along the way.
While this model may not apply to devices with smaller user bases, it will alleviate a lot of angst towards cell phone companies by disgruntled users.
In conclusion, I feel that companies shouldn’t tweak a small thing or two, add a fancy word here and there, and call it a whole new device.
They also need to realize just how much they piss of their customers by not delivering what they promise.
So, what do you think? Is there another way to do things or is stuff fine the way it is? Do let us know in the comments below!
Say what you want about Windows Phone 7, but if Microsoft really manages to push updates to all devices (like Apple), independent of the manufacturer, then it's one reason (for me) to wait for Nokias first Windows Smartphone. The update policy is the main reason I'm not getting an Android at the moment. If my phones hardware supports the new android version, I want to be able to install it the moment Google releases it.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by ZOMGitsCj.com, Aatif Sumar. Aatif Sumar said: RT @ZOMGitsCj: Can We Reach Update Utopia? – http://bit.ly/fQRYtB [...]