Android 2.2 - Froyo

[lordegregious]

As far as I'm concerned they owe me updates for 2 years since the launch of the device. I'll maybe cut them a year and half. 95% of people are stuck with the phone for 2 years so they should at least provide updates for that time. I understand hardware things being cut in the future but to just stop updating a phone before 2 years from launch is just bad business.

 

[Darkseider]

droid is the most popular(read- most sold of single model) phone to date.
theres no way that it cant handle it, and they arent going to leave their bread and butter out to dry.

Well, it's the single most popular ANDROID phone to date. And there's no question that the Droid will get the 2.2 upgrade. It's a question of when. Considering that Verizon cannot currently meet the demand for the Incredible, it would take some serious cajones to siphon off a significant portion of that demand to a $19.95 phone with a more capable operating system version.

Not to say that Verizon won't do so, but if I were a shareholder I'd have some serious questions about such a strategy.

The thing is that your average everyday consumer just knows Droid. Whether it be an Incredible or a Droid they just know Droid. To update the Droid to 2.2 first, while still selling the Incredible like hot cakes, makes perfect sense. That way once the sales of Incredible have stabilized and supply begins to meet demand the 2.2 update for the Incredible can be pushed out. Hell with Flash Lite on the Incredible I would be willing to bet that your average joe/jane consumer would even notice a difference unless it was specifically pointed out to them.

 

[jsh1120]

As far as I'm concerned they owe me updates for 2 years since the launch of the device. I'll maybe cut them a year and half. 95% of people are stuck with the phone for 2 years so they should at least provide updates for that time. I understand hardware things being cut in the future but to just stop updating a phone before 2 years from launch is just bad business.

You might want to check your contract. "They" don't "owe" you updates of almost any kind, especially updates that enhance the capabilities of your device. The only possible exception are updates to fix bugs that prevent your device from operating as it was advertised at the time of purchase.

Whether it is "good business" is another question, altogether. For a firm like Verizon that comes down to how best to encourage you to remain on a long-term contract and whether it is profitable to sell you a new device.

 

[640k]

people seem to forget that phones (you know the devices we were forced to use before "msart" phones??) typically had 0 updates. they were what they were.

hell, most pocket PC devices never had an update of any kind. not even software updates. if you wanted something better, you had to wait for the next version and pay for it.

 

[Darkseider]

As far as I'm concerned they owe me updates for 2 years since the launch of the device. I'll maybe cut them a year and half. 95% of people are stuck with the phone for 2 years so they should at least provide updates for that time. I understand hardware things being cut in the future but to just stop updating a phone before 2 years from launch is just bad business.

You might want to check your contract. "They" don't "owe" you updates of almost any kind, especially updates that enhance the capabilities of your device. The only possible exception are updates to fix bugs that prevent your device from operating as it was advertised at the time of purchase.

Whether it is "good business" is another question, altogether. For a firm like Verizon that comes down to how best to encourage you to remain on a long-term contract and whether it is profitable to sell you a new device.

That is a double edged sword though. If Verizon were to guarantee me software, OS and feature updates for my phone while under contract I would be far more likely to renew my contract and get a new phone. So they get the new phone purchase as well as an additional two years from me.

 

[kpiskin]

We didn't get updates all the time back then because we didn't live in a "beta" world. However items, even electronic ones, were more basic back then. And nowadays, if you can't deliver a product quickly, even if it isn't 100% ready, then you're already way behind the competition. Regardless of what a contract says, it is pretty much implied that constant evolution of a product is guaranteed, particularly for a higher end product.

Could you imagine that the PS3 would still be selling if it was the exact same product it was when it first released or if they only provided new firmware only if you bought a new PS3?

 

[jsh1120]

The thing is that your average everyday consumer just knows Droid. Whether it be an Incredible or a Droid they just know Droid. To update the Droid to 2.2 first, while still selling the Incredible like hot cakes, makes perfect sense. That way once the sales of Incredible have stabilized and supply begins to meet demand the 2.2 update for the Incredible can be pushed out. Hell with Flash Lite on the Incredible I would be willing to bet that your average joe/jane consumer would even notice a difference unless it was specifically pointed out to them.

Well, if the performance improvements in 2.2 are to be believed, consumers will almost certainly notice THAT difference. It all depends, of course, on whether VZW benefits significantly from selling a highly subsidized phone.

If, in fact, it makes no difference to Verizon whether one buys a phone from them or from Amazon, Best Buy, Wirefly, or Dell where Droids are selling for as little as $20, they lose little (if anything) by cannibalizing the sales of the Incredible.

But if a Droid performs 3-4 times faster than an Incredible, I'm sure someone at VZW will be concerned about Incredible sales.

 

[hookbill]

hmmmm...jsh1120 didn't answer my question. Is the answer that obvious?
:redface:

 

[jsh1120]

We didn't get updates all the time back then because we didn't live in a "beta" world. However items, even electronic ones, were more basic back then. And nowadays, if you can't deliver a product quickly, even if it isn't 100% ready, then you're already way behind the competition. Regardless of what a contract says, it is pretty much implied that constant evolution of a product is guaranteed, particularly for a higher end product.

Could you imagine that the PS3 would still be selling if it was the exact same product it was when it first released or if they only provided new firmware only if you bought a new PS3?

You make a good point about marketplace expectations. But I think you're comparing apples and oranges to some extent. Once a customer purchases a PS3, most additional profit doesn't come from selling him/her another gaming system. It comes from selling new games. Thus, a manufacturer has a strong incentive to maintain an up-to-date device for the entire installed base.

On the other hand, carriers (at least in this country) derive most of their profits from long-term contracts. If a customer opts to jump ship part way through their contract, the various fees allow the carrier to recoup their subsidy AND potentially to sell you a new device with a new two year commitment.

If Verizon charged you for updates or apps they'd be in the same position as Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft with their gaming systems. But they don't. And if you had to extend your contract with VZW to get the 2.2 update, they'd rush it out as soon as possible. But again, that's not part of the deal.

Of course, VZW may make you an unhappy customer by not providing updates on a prompt schedule. But unless you're so unhappy that you leave for another carrier, it's not a problem for their bottom line. And even if you leave, if Verizon can find someone to replace you with a new snazzy phone model with a two year contract commitment, they don't suffer, either.

 

[jsh1120]

hmmmm...jsh1120 didn't answer my question. Is the answer that obvious?
:redface:

Sorry, buddy. I thought it was that obvious. I'm predicting that the Droid won't get the 2.2 upgrade significantly sooner than the Incredible.

 

[mattg1]

hmmmm...jsh1120 didn't answer my question. Is the answer that obvious?
:redface:

Sorry, buddy. I thought it was that obvious. I'm predicting that the Droid won't get the 2.2 upgrade significantly sooner than the Incredible.

It will if google has it there way

 

[kpiskin]

We didn't get updates all the time back then because we didn't live in a "beta" world. However items, even electronic ones, were more basic back then. And nowadays, if you can't deliver a product quickly, even if it isn't 100% ready, then you're already way behind the competition. Regardless of what a contract says, it is pretty much implied that constant evolution of a product is guaranteed, particularly for a higher end product.

Could you imagine that the PS3 would still be selling if it was the exact same product it was when it first released or if they only provided new firmware only if you bought a new PS3?

You make a good point about marketplace expectations. But I think you're comparing apples and oranges to some extent. Once a customer purchases a PS3, most additional profit doesn't come from selling him/her another gaming system. It comes from selling new games. Thus, a manufacturer has a strong incentive to maintain an up-to-date device for the entire installed base.

On the other hand, carriers (at least in this country) derive most of their profits from long-term contracts. If a customer opts to jump ship part way through their contract, the various fees allow the carrier to recoup their subsidy AND potentially to sell you a new device with a new two year commitment.

If Verizon charged you for updates or apps they'd be in the same position as Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft with their gaming systems. But they don't. And if you had to extend your contract with VZW to get the 2.2 update, they'd rush it out as soon as possible. But again, that's not part of the deal.

Of course, VZW may make you an unhappy customer by not providing updates on a prompt schedule. But unless you're so unhappy that you leave for another carrier, it's not a problem for their bottom line. And even if you leave, if Verizon can find someone to replace you with a new snazzy phone model with a two year contract commitment, they don't suffer, either.

I think you are correct when you're talking about the traditional type cellular phones each carrier pedals. However, I am mainly referring to these newer phones, like Androids and iPhones.

As the internal parts of these devices start to be able to outlive their original capabilities (again like a PS3 XBOX etc), carriers should be motivated to keep them relevant. The reason I say is this because you may start to see a shift in user trends where users keep their phones longer because the performance and capabilities can be maintained beyond a typical 24 month lifecycle. Think about how much like a Droid is like a desktop PC or notebook computer in this regard. We can upgrade memory and/or the battery to extend its life. Software and firmware can extend the feature set. We tend to become attached to them and as you can see there is a huge market in modifying our phones and adding unique features and capabilities. We see people who are hanging onto the G1 phones for similar reasons. Of course we also have people who will upgrade as soon as they see something more recent.

So I think by keeping these types of phones up to date, each carrier builds more loyalty (less churn), continues a revenue stream without relying on exntending contracts and subsidizing phone purchase costs (eating into revenue) while also maintaining customer loyalty and happiness that would in turn build a larger customer base.

 

[640k]

We didn't get updates all the time back then because we didn't live in a "beta" world. However items, even electronic ones, were more basic back then. And nowadays, if you can't deliver a product quickly, even if it isn't 100% ready, then you're already way behind the competition. Regardless of what a contract says, it is pretty much implied that constant evolution of a product is guaranteed, particularly for a higher end product.

Could you imagine that the PS3 would still be selling if it was the exact same product it was when it first released or if they only provided new firmware only if you bought a new PS3?

You make a good point about marketplace expectations. But I think you're comparing apples and oranges to some extent. Once a customer purchases a PS3, most additional profit doesn't come from selling him/her another gaming system. It comes from selling new games. Thus, a manufacturer has a strong incentive to maintain an up-to-date device for the entire installed base.

On the other hand, carriers (at least in this country) derive most of their profits from long-term contracts. If a customer opts to jump ship part way through their contract, the various fees allow the carrier to recoup their subsidy AND potentially to sell you a new device with a new two year commitment.

If Verizon charged you for updates or apps they'd be in the same position as Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft with their gaming systems. But they don't. And if you had to extend your contract with VZW to get the 2.2 update, they'd rush it out as soon as possible. But again, that's not part of the deal.

Of course, VZW may make you an unhappy customer by not providing updates on a prompt schedule. But unless you're so unhappy that you leave for another carrier, it's not a problem for their bottom line. And even if you leave, if Verizon can find someone to replace you with a new snazzy phone model with a two year contract commitment, they don't suffer, either.

I think you are correct when you're talking about the traditional type cellular phones each carrier pedals. However, I am mainly referring to these newer phones, like Androids and iPhones.

As the internal parts of these devices start to be able to outlive their original capabilities (again like a PS3 XBOX etc), carriers should be motivated to keep them relevant. The reason I say is this because you may start to see a shift in user trends where users keep their phones longer because the performance and capabilities can be maintained beyond a typical 24 month lifecycle. Think about how much like a Droid is like a desktop PC or notebook computer in this regard. We can upgrade memory and/or the battery to extend its life. Software and firmware can extend the feature set. We tend to become attached to them and as you can see there is a huge market in modifying our phones and adding unique features and capabilities. We see people who are hanging onto the G1 phones for similar reasons. Of course we also have people who will upgrade as soon as they see something more recent.

So I think by keeping these types of phones up to date, each carrier builds more loyalty (less churn), continues a revenue stream without relying on exntending contracts and subsidizing phone purchase costs (eating into revenue) while also maintaining customer loyalty and happiness that would in turn build a larger customer base.

you're expecting far too much a service provider. carriers do not manufacture devices in order to turn profit. they work with vendors in order to buy devices by the bulk, so as to attract new customers into paying for said carrier's maintenance.

i think the biggest problem with this model is how the US has cornered itself into non-global technologies, instead of contributing to standard. because of this, device selection has hindered any sort of notion that providing what the customer wnats is what keeps the customer happy.

in the end, it boils down to service. do you realize how many years people griped and complained about Sprint's lack of selection?

customer loyalty is a myth and anyone who tells you otherwise is a small business or is lying. big corps gain customer loyalty by remaining competitive.

think about it. are you a loyal walmrt shopper, as in you'd rather not shop anywhere else, ever? or do you just go there, because you really know it really saves you money?

 

[jsh1120]

...As the internal parts of these devices start to be able to outlive their original capabilities (again like a PS3 XBOX etc), carriers should be motivated to keep them relevant. The reason I say is this because you may start to see a shift in user trends where users keep their phones longer because the performance and capabilities can be maintained beyond a typical 24 month lifecycle. Think about how much like a Droid is like a desktop PC or notebook computer in this regard. We can upgrade memory and/or the battery to extend its life. Software and firmware can extend the feature set. We tend to become attached to them and as you can see there is a huge market in modifying our phones and adding unique features and capabilities. We see people who are hanging onto the G1 phones for similar reasons. Of course we also have people who will upgrade as soon as they see something more recent.

So I think by keeping these types of phones up to date, each carrier builds more loyalty (less churn), continues a revenue stream without relying on exntending contracts and subsidizing phone purchase costs (eating into revenue) while also maintaining customer loyalty and happiness that would in turn build a larger customer base.

You may be right, of course, but I see very little evidence of it so far. And I suspect that the implementation of 4G networks will prevent it from happening for the foreseeable future.

There is, of course, a large portion of the market that sees little reason to upgrade on anything less than a 24 month schedule. I live with someone in that group. But I don't think many of those folks are motivated to upgrade their phone's capabilities. Instead, as long as the device meets their needs, they're satisfied.

As far as the value of building customer "loyalty," I don't see that carriers are especially interested in that, either. Instead, what I see is a concerted effort to reinforce that "loyalty" with an ironclad two year contract. "Loyalty" is one thing; contractual obligations are much more certain.

For example, for some reason when I purchased my Droid in November (30 months into my earlier contract), my contract wasn't updated. VZW still thinks I'm eligible for a "new every two" upgrade. And I receive emails regularly encouraging me to upgrade and commit to a new contract. I'm not someone VZW has to worry about, but they certainly show no evidence of complacency. They want me to sign on the dotted line just to be sure I can't go wandering off to another carrier.

 

[jsh1120]

i think the biggest problem with this model is how the US has cornered itself into non-global technologies, instead of contributing to standard. because of this, device selection has hindered any sort of notion that providing what the customer wnats is what keeps the customer happy.

+1 in spades. The market distortion in the US that results from subsidized phone prices undermines the selection of devices and competition for customers. The EU recognized early on that separating carriers from device providers (via GSM technology) would mean that carriers compete with one another on the basis of service and phone manufacturers compete on the basis of features and performance.

Unfortunately, American consumers' addiction to credit dovetails nicely with carriers' desire to lock consumers into long term contracts and reduce competition.