"So personally, while I would love to get every new release of WM free from MS, I have learned not to expect it, have come to terms with it, understand what I am buying, and am pretty happy with the capabilities of the platform I have in my hand. To me, it is going to be a matter of what do I buy when my current contract runs out, or the itch gets too bad. There is a good chance MS has something for me that is compelling with WM7. Guess we'll see. The decision won't be based on believing I'll get WM8 though, from MS, HTC, or AT&T."
The fact is that the rest of the World market is not strangled by carriers like here in the US.
When you pay $850 for a HTC HD2 you expect that if, for example, a "Sense 2" build is released in 6 momths it will made available to you by HTC; in the same way if WM 7 will appear within one year the same buyer could reasonably expecting to be able to upgrade to the new OS, not necessarily for free though, and do this within one month since the availability of the new software, not one year after! Obviously an OS upgrade should not cost more than $25 or something like this.
Either way MS engage hardware manufacturers to guarantee customers these kind of upgrades or MS should offer SmartPhones directly and support them.
'Back in the day' (7 to 8 years ago) Microsoft was reported to be earning about $28 per license of the Pocket PC OS from the manufacturers. Nowadays it varies between about $10 and $15 as I understand it. Also back then, Compaq (then HP a bit later) offered OS upgrades for existing devices for about $30, and many were sold on CD. I don't see why MS couldn't use a similar pricing to pay for the relatively trivial development time to release custom per-device OS upgrades today, especially considering how ROM cooks have most of their work cut out in monkeying with the innards of the OS without access to the source code. MS owns that source code, and has all the nifty compiler stuff and a full department dedicated to making Windows Mobile work. If a solitary cook can customise a new WM OS for a given device (or as in the case with dsixda, for his old and his new devices which offer VERY different hardware, but for which he says it's really not all that different coding ROMs), then surely it'd be so much simpler for the authors themselves to do the same for any and every device. Sorry Sven, I don't agree. MS stands to make double, maybe triple their individual license price per device upgrade, and since the average noob isn't likely to follow that route, the OEMs still stand to sell just as many new shiny phones. I'm with Fritzly on this one. The 'good guy' points would fall to MS in the eyes of their loyal users, and a bit of that would no doubt also flow to the open market as good karma, just as you say it has for Apple, whether motivated by profit or not.
Well Gerard, guess we will just disagree on this. Seems it is largely on whether it would be profitable, beneficial, whatever word is used for the vendors to produce upgrades. I'm sure you can't be expecting it because it is the right thing to do. I recall the few early PPC upgrades, both free and pay. Certainly the only return on the free ones was good will. Remember how fast the consumer worm turned when one iPaq upgrade was free, 'as it should be', and the next didn't come at all, 'I'll never buy another HP product.' I think the goodwill is pretty short lived. As for the pay ones, like Dell, I sort of recall reading/hearing that they really didn't get enough takers to make it worthwhile. They certainly got more vocal press from the 'it shoulda been free' crowd than the 'hey, they at least offered it,' crowd.
Maybe it isn't that tough for an individual to cook an individual ROM, but consider that a good deal of that is likely illegal. Pulling the drivers, disassembling the code and recombining are all violations of the licensing. I have no particular issue with Joe Schmuckatelly doing this, but I don't think MS could do it. I really don't think they have the legal right to grab drivers from Samsung, HTC, Motorola, etc and deliver fully functional ROM upgrades. Even for Beta tests they have had to get special permission to offer test units based on OEM hardware. Just a function of the ecosystem/process they built and are now stuck with......Until they build their own device.
__________________
Sometimes you are the anteater, sometimes you are the ant.
MS can push out upgrades all they want to but it won't mean a thing until the carrier approves and allows the upgrades to occur.
Again - there is that unique layer that HAS to disappear in order for this to be effective. Because the carrier needs to stick their finger in to everything we (the consumer) looses. Imagine if your ISP had to approve any OS patches/upgrades before you could install them on your PC or MAC? You'd go over the edge!
That is the unfortunate model that we have to live with in the smartphone world. Until the carriers get out of the way and allow the OS makers to push new and improved updates through arguing for OS updates is a wasted effort (IMHO).
MS can push out upgrades all they want to but it won't mean a thing until the carrier approves and allows the upgrades to occur.
Again - there is that unique layer that HAS to disappear in order for this to be effective. Because the carrier needs to stick their finger in to everything we (the consumer) looses. Imagine if your ISP had to approve any OS patches/upgrades before you could install them on your PC or MAC? You'd go over the edge!
That is the unfortunate model that we have to live with in the smartphone world. Until the carriers get out of the way and allow the OS makers to push new and improved updates through arguing for OS updates is a wasted effort (IMHO).
Yet, somehow, Apple manages to push updates out to it's phones every 4-6 months. Palm has pushed 3 (i think) updates to the Pre in it's short life. HTC has updated the Google G1 on T-Mobile at least twice, and another update is pending (all within a year).
It's become far too convenient for Microsoft and their OEM partners to point the finger at the carriers. Most of their competitors seem to have figured out how to work through this issue with the carriers. I suspect because they have been more motivated to.
I went iPhone with the original release. I eagerly awaited the SDK and app store and am very happy right now.
When I had a WinMob phone/PDA I found it hard to get things "just to work" - ie. bluetooth connectivity, WiFi etc. How often people thought it was another blackberry? all the time!
Anyway, now that the WinMob apps are ported to the iPhone, I am happy.
__________________
iPhone / iPod(s) / Mac Desktop & Portables.. yet I'm a Windows/MS Platform Dev ;)
I recall the few early PPC upgrades, both free and pay. Certainly the only return on the free ones was good will. Remember how fast the consumer worm turned when one iPaq upgrade was free, 'as it should be', and the next didn't come at all, 'I'll never buy another HP product.' I think the goodwill is pretty short lived. As for the pay ones, like Dell, I sort of recall reading/hearing that they really didn't get enough takers to make it worthwhile. They certainly got more vocal press from the 'it shoulda been free' crowd than the 'hey, they at least offered it,' crowd.
Linear Mode
LinkBacks (?)
