ACLU Files FTC Complaint Against Wireless Carriers

[piper28]

Eh, I think it's a stretch to think this is going anywhere. Quite frankly, some of those older phones can't even run the newer versions of Android, so of course they're not going to get the upgrade. And I think it's a pretty large leap to think that an advertisement that says latest version of android is a commitment to keep upgrading a phone, any reasonable person reading that should recognize that it's latest version available at the time.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by piper28

Quite frankly, some of those older phones can't even run the newer versions of Android, so of course they're not going to get the upgrade.

That doesn't address the issue that those that are capable of handling the upgrade get bypassed or take forever to get it.

Even though it's not a "carrier" device, my Galaxy Player 4 is still stuck on Gingerbread and it's quite obvious that Samsung has no intention of upgrading it. If I want Jelly Bean, I'll have to root it.

From now on, my Android devices will either be Nexus or Kindle.

[pl001]

Thing is, security isn't a big deal on Android to begin with. There are no major security flaws on my phone, which still runs IceCreamSandwhich. There were no major security flaws when it ran GingerBread either. If you install pirated software from dubious sites, yeah, there may be a risk involved there, but it's not the responsibility of carriers to protect you from that kind of stupidity.

As much as I hate the way carriers operate in the US, this lawsuit is nothing more than petty whining. You don't have a "right" to the latest and greatest version of software. Does Best Buy owe me a Windows 8 upgrade on my XP laptop I bought 6 years ago? After all it still has good enough specs (barely) to handle it. The logic behind this is simply ridiculous. And if it succeeds, it will cost carriers money. Who do you think will ultimately pay for those increased costs?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by pl001

As much as I hate the way carriers operate in the US, this lawsuit is nothing more than petty whining. You don't have a "right" to the latest and greatest version of software.

The second reason I won't get a subsidized Android phone is the lengthy time it takes to upgrade the OS after it's released. That problem also persists with non-Nexus unlocked Android phones.

Samsung's refusal to upgrade the Galaxy Players from Gingerbread to Jellybean is the reason I'll never get another one of their net devices. I wonder how many they would have sold if they told the consumers up front that these devices would never see an upgrade past Gingerbread?

Timely OS upgrades from Apple and Nexus is the biggest advantage they have over the competition.

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by pl001

Thing is, security isn't a big deal on Android to begin with. There are no major security flaws on my phone, which still runs IceCreamSandwhich. There were no major security flaws when it ran GingerBread either. If you install pirated software from dubious sites, yeah, there may be a risk involved there, but it's not the responsibility of carriers to protect you from that kind of stupidity.

As much as I hate the way carriers operate in the US, this lawsuit is nothing more than petty whining. You don't have a "right" to the latest and greatest version of software. Does Best Buy owe me a Windows 8 upgrade on my XP laptop I bought 6 years ago? After all it still has good enough specs (barely) to handle it. The logic behind this is simply ridiculous. And if it succeeds, it will cost carriers money. Who do you think will ultimately pay for those increased costs?

1) the right isn't to the latest & greatest, it's to security. If there's a patch to XP that will fix the security holes then that's all you have a right to. Half the issue though is that carriers have modified Android to the point that users can't install standard updates. To continue your analogy, if Best Buy had modified XP to the point where you couldn't install Windows Updates from Microsoft then yes, maybe they would owe you an upgrade.
2) If it's done under a court order then the court could include the provision that the costs be borne by the carrier. Or not. So many courts kowtow to big business that it's likely not, but a lot depends on the persuasiveness of the lawyers.
3) Android has security flaws. The fact that they're not as bad as Windows' doesn't make them non-existent. In a way this is still 'security by obscurity'. Sure, Android is popular-but it's still not as big & easy a target as Windows-so which do you think hackers are going to go for first?

[pl001]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

1) the right isn't to the latest & greatest, it's to security. If there's a patch to XP that will fix the security holes then that's all you have a right to. Half the issue though is that carriers have modified Android to the point that users can't install standard updates. To continue your analogy, if Best Buy had modified XP to the point where you couldn't install Windows Updates from Microsoft then yes, maybe they would owe you an upgrade.
2) If it's done under a court order then the court could include the provision that the costs be borne by the carrier. Or not. So many courts kowtow to big business that it's likely not, but a lot depends on the persuasiveness of the lawyers.
3) Android has security flaws. The fact that they're not as bad as Windows' doesn't make them non-existent. In a way this is still 'security by obscurity'. Sure, Android is popular-but it's still not as big & easy a target as Windows-so which do you think hackers are going to go for first?

Fair enough points, but:

1. Why do you have a "right" to security? I had to purchase 3rd party software to secure XP, and even that isn't air-tight. And just like XP, you don't need the latest version to get security patches on Android. Older versions are still patched from time to time, I know mine was at least twice. So the assumption this lawsuit makes that you need the latest OS version to be secure is bunk to begin with.

2. Costs borne by the carrier will be passed on to customers in one way or another. Period.

3. See point 1. NOTHING is completely secure, but even Gingerbread is more secure than any version of Windows is out of the box. Why should resellers be held to a higher standard?

I think most people are simply annoyed and rightfully so. I am too. If I can verify AT&T service has improved in my area enough to meet my needs my next phone will be a Nexus. But if it's not in writing, they don't owe you anything other than the device as described at the time you bought it. It may be in their best interests to keep customers happy of course, but that's a far cry from legal obligation.

[pl001]

One more thought on this, the bulk of this problem isn't even with the carriers. It's the manufacturers that insist on putting their own versions of Android on devices that are so customized it simply isn't practical to keep all devices updated. Even Google bears more responsibility than carriers for not having better standard requirements.

But the manufacturers need their customized OSs to make a profit off customized apps and services. There's no money to be made with pure Android. And Google can't push Nexus too hard because manufacturers don't want to make a device that undercuts their own. It's an interesting situation. Will Android maintain its success after Samsung finishes squashing competing manufacturers?

[morriss003]

I have a Trac phone. I don't leave it on, because if I do, people will call me.