I was unfortunate enough to own one of the first Android devices, the HTC Magic (aka MyTouch3G). This was prior to, and also one of the first victims of, Android fragmentation. The process of discovering who was responsible for updates was the least open and opaque process I could have imagined. I had to resort to seeking out the information from other users on the Vodafone forum to discover that basically, no one actually cared. I had already bought the device so HTC had their money and didn't care, I was signed up to a 2 year contract so Vodafone had their money and didn't care, and Google got to license the phone as a Google Experience one, selling their app suite as well as me using their services. Google maybe cared a little, but they do not provide support or after care really unless talking to a perl script counts as support.
The underlying OS might be revolutionary in some ways, but the update process (at least the one sanctioned by Google) is so far away from revolutionary I find it hard to fathom the Android Reality Distortion Field I sometimes hear about this. It sucks. It gives the user next to no after care, it is all about the upfront purchase to the handset maker, the vampire like carrier fees, and the services provided by Google including all the advertising on the devices. I think people are evangelising this beyond what is rational.
Ah, but if I'm a poor(ish) African villager, what's important to me is not updating my phone to the latest and greatest Android version, but the fact that I could buy a cheap smartphone to begin with.
Ah, so you are a poor African villager then? It's good to have you weigh-in on the discussion. We here in the first world are mostly ignorant and think that people in the third world only expect shitty technology with no updates.
I still own an HTC Magic. Vodafone did eventually get updated versions of Android pushed through. Unfortunately the truth is that the HTC Magic's hardware isn't good enough to run them. Mine runs extremely sluggishly since the update.
Not sure if there's any particular lesson here beyond 'early adopters get burned'.
Yeah, I can see your point about early adopters. From what I understand though it is still happening today with ICS. Just look at the Samsung S, not even 2 years old and it can't (or won't) run it. Users have to go the CyanoGen route, which is for the technically inclined.
If third world countries are going to be supplied with cheap hardware then surely they are going to be excluded far more readily from updates. I also think it would be patronising to assume they would not want updates or app compatibility. What happens when the Facebook app, 2 years down the road, suddenly requires ICS to run?
The underlying OS might be revolutionary in some ways, but the update process (at least the one sanctioned by Google) is so far away from revolutionary I find it hard to fathom the Android Reality Distortion Field I sometimes hear about this. It sucks. It gives the user next to no after care, it is all about the upfront purchase to the handset maker, the vampire like carrier fees, and the services provided by Google including all the advertising on the devices. I think people are evangelising this beyond what is rational.