11-23-2004, 06:00 PM
|
|
Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,171
|
|
mobilePASSION On Windows Mobile OS Upgrades
"I don't think there is a more volatile issue concerning Pocket PCs than upgrades for the Windows Mobile operating system. The subject usually becomes very heated. On one side we have people who feel the absolute need for the latest and greatest, and will buy a new device in a heartbeat to get an upgraded version of Windows Mobile, as well as new hardware. They could care less about an upgrade. This happens to be the same side the OEMs are on. Go figure. On the other side we have all those who feel that since Pocket PCs have a flashable ROM that OEMs should provide upgrades to a much wider selection of devices, and are disappointed when an OEM does not offer an upgrade for their device. I think some of us feel that since we are told that because a device is upgradeable that it is the OEMs obligation to do so when a new OS comes along. I guess the best place to start with this is to clear some of the confusion..."
Dave chimes in over on Dale's new blog with some insightful discussion on Windows Mobile upgrade policies. I suspect it's not necessarily what we want to hear, but as always, the situation is more complex than it seems at first. Nevertheless, it remains a little frustrating that my e805 Pocket PC and i600 Smartphone will likely never get WMP10. :|
|
| |
|
|
|
11-23-2004, 06:42 PM
|
|
Mystic
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,734
|
|
My comment posted on Dale's web site:
Another example of Stockholm syndrome.
Yes, there are good business reasons for not offering an upgrade. It would be more profitable to have us buy a new handheld every year. There are relational reasons between the OEM's and Microsoft why they dont have to offer upgrades.
The fact is that as consumers we should not have to care about all these reasons. We care about the platform, but the profitability of HP and Dell should also not be our concern. Is the platform that fragile that a few 10000 people who delay their upgrades for 6 months would destroy it? There are multiple reasons why offering upgrades would stimulate the market, by allowing us to buy more expensive pocketpc's with larger profit margins, that we keep for longer. Imagine making $60 profit over 3 years, instead of $20 every two.
Anyways, these arguments are not our concern. Its clear that CONSUMERS are interested in upgradeable devices, and are DISAPPOINTED (as you so nicely put it) when cynical marketing execs with fully developed upgrade ROM's refuse to release them. Its our right to make our feelings clear, and PUNISH them for ignoring us. If this means actually causing pocketpc's to die, that would be good too, as its not our responsibility to support a consumer hostile business model.
Maybe next time they would develop a better way to do it, with a proper hardware abstraction model and updates straight from Microsoft.
Surur
|
| |
|
|
|
11-23-2004, 07:13 PM
|
|
Neophyte
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8
|
|
Every time this issue comes up people are quick to blame the OEMs. Have we forgotten that MS started this flash memory = upgrades concept back when PPC2002 was released?
I remember, so I searched MS and found a page from the old PPC2002 tour which talks about flash memory and future upgrades. I see no disclaimers on this page about OEMs having the final say in that matter.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsmobi...pgradable.mspx
I haven't posted here in so long I couldn't remember my id/pw but I just had to chime in on this issue. I don't want to exonerate the OEMs from any responsibility in this matter, but MS should also feel some of the heat that this issue is generating, not just Dell, HP, etc.
Notice the last sentence "Plus, the updated operating system remains on your device, even after you've reset it." Hmm, could this explain why some of us expected OS upgrades with our PPCs?
|
| |
|
|
|
11-23-2004, 07:24 PM
|
|
Magi
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,341
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by homer999
I don't want to exonerate the OEMs from any responsibility in this matter, but MS should also feel some of the heat that this issue is generating, not just Dell, HP, etc.
|
homer999,
I agree fully with this statement. It is Microsoft who has set the stage. I think it is up to them to handle the present state of affairs in someway. I don't know what the answer is but I do believe that MS should show some direction on this issue in some way. I think they should at least make it clear to the consumer what is happening. From there on I don't know. I have brought it up before, and elsewhere but it has fallen on deaf ears.
Dave
|
| |
|
|
|
11-23-2004, 07:57 PM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10
|
|
I can understand that some hardware manufacturers won't support their devices indefinitely, including by providing OS upgrades. I do think, however, that manufacturers should disclose clearly and explicitly in their product brochures that there is no guarantee (or likelihood, where this is the case) that an OS upgrade will be offered. In circumstances I have seen, one manufacturer has chosen to offer upgrades in respect of some of that manufacturer's devices but not others. I can understand that, but I'd like to know up front, in clear terms, what the manufacturer's upgrade policy will be.
|
| |
|
|
|
11-23-2004, 08:18 PM
|
|
Editorial Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,411
|
|
I don't understand why the fact that all the PPCs have flashable ROMs in accordance with MS requirements, indicates, or even implies, that when significant changes are made that you get them. Bug fixes you expect. Enhancements are a good thing. Having an unalienable right to the next major release of the OS, though seems a bit optimistic.
I have installed numerous flash upgrades on 568s, 4155s, 2215s, X5s and X30s. The OSs were updated, and by golly "..the updated operating system remains on your device, even after you've reset it." We do get updates, and they do install as advertised. Every patch, or OS update, I did on my 548, sat in RAM taking up room, and disappeared if I had to hard reset.
__________________
Sometimes you are the anteater, sometimes you are the ant.
|
| |
|
|
|
11-23-2004, 08:57 PM
|
|
Mystic
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,734
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Benjamin Reiss
I think that my trouble with this entire argument is that words like "wave", "movement" and "platform" are being used in a way that suggests the Pocket PC brand as some kind of quasi- political/religous choice. Microsoft and the OEMs have manipulated the market to such a degree that the market feels obliged to do what is best for the OEMs, instead of the other way around.
At the risk of sounding like a paranoid msmobiles-like troll, I seriously worry that "enthusiast" websites are being subverted as an integral part of the Pocket PC sales strategy. When MVPs and well-known czars tell consumers to accept what is good for OEM shareholders, it feels as though the brand is being sold at a new level entirely. Pocket PC becomes less about the devices and more of a primal theology - we must sacrifice our own interests (upgrades) for the sake of the great gods of the market (HP, Dell, others), and not complain about it, lest we upset those gods and hurt their ability to convert other consumers. We all watch excitedly as our "religion" grows or shrinks: will we vanquish Palm?
Let's get real. Our loyalty (if any) to these companies should be based on what they give us - not what we need to do to keep them happy. Even if we are geeks who really like mobile technology, that is no reason to worship at the altar of the brand itself.
A final thought: perhaps consumer brand loyalty will always mean emotional investment in the success of the product. However, I would argue that this should breed solidarity among users rather than sacrifice for the OEMs. Some of us are students still taking our notes on an X5 with 20 MB of free ROM storage. Some of us are small business owners with a 1-year old iPaq. We cannot afford to keep purchasing new devices each year; we do not receive free review models.
If we demand devices that are supported with software upgrades for a significant lifespan (not just until the next model is released), basic economics would suggest that a supply will form. It seems, however, that our ability to "demand" is being inhibited by enthusiast/community sites who advocate for OEM shareholders instead of consumers.
|
I agree fully with this poster. As rational consumers we should not be blinded by our fanboyism in how we spend our hundreds of dollars. We would be like a battered wife, constantly going back to our husband, trying our best not to provoke him, in case he leaves and kicks us out on the street.
Maybe it is best to leave...
Surur
|
| |
|
|
|
11-23-2004, 08:57 PM
|
|
Mystic
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,887
|
|
The very first HPCs didn't have flash rom but were upgradeable.
In fact, I upgraded my first gen NEC Mobile-pro 400 that way.
It cost $100 to get the replacement module and I was happy to get it. The Philips Velo also offered a ROM update, as I remember.
Which is to say, folks have forgotten that there is a reasonable middle ground in this debate; offer the upgrade at a profitable price point. If you like your device and the new OS seems worth $75-100 then you go for it.
If not, well, it still does everything it did when you bought it, no?
I have to wonder how many people complaining of lack of OS upgrades would actually *want* it if they had to pay anything for it...
|
| |
|
|
|
11-23-2004, 09:00 PM
|
|
Neophyte
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sven
I don't understand why the fact that all the PPCs have flashable ROMs in accordance with MS requirements, indicates, or even implies, that when significant changes are made that you get them.
|
When it is marketed as such, a consumer should expect it. That is why there should be some disclaimer or text that says something to the effect that the OEMs have final say and that there are no guarantees.
I have noticed with new OS releases that MS does state that it is up to the OEM to release the upgrade for their particular device and not MS. But again, that wasn't the way it was sold to us in the beginning. And I think that is why some of us do expect upgrades from the OEMs (free or $$$).
MS defines the requirements but puts the final responsibility of supplying upgrades whether it be bug fixes or OS releases in the hands of the OEMs. That is fine. But MS shouldn't advertise the benefits of flash memory if most OEMs have no intentions to take advantage of it.
|
| |
|
|
|
11-23-2004, 09:12 PM
|
|
Magi
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,341
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Surur
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Benjamin Reiss
I think that my trouble with this entire argument is that words like "wave", "movement" and "platform" are being used in a way that suggests the Pocket PC brand as some kind of quasi- political/religous choice. Microsoft and the OEMs have manipulated the market to such a degree that the market feels obliged to do what is best for the OEMs, instead of the other way around.
At the risk of sounding like a paranoid msmobiles-like troll, I seriously worry that "enthusiast" websites are being subverted as an integral part of the Pocket PC sales strategy. When MVPs and well-known czars tell consumers to accept what is good for OEM shareholders, it feels as though the brand is being sold at a new level entirely. Pocket PC becomes less about the devices and more of a primal theology - we must sacrifice our own interests (upgrades) for the sake of the great gods of the market (HP, Dell, others), and not complain about it, lest we upset those gods and hurt their ability to convert other consumers. We all watch excitedly as our "religion" grows or shrinks: will we vanquish Palm?
Let's get real. Our loyalty (if any) to these companies should be based on what they give us - not what we need to do to keep them happy. Even if we are geeks who really like mobile technology, that is no reason to worship at the altar of the brand itself.
A final thought: perhaps consumer brand loyalty will always mean emotional investment in the success of the product. However, I would argue that this should breed solidarity among users rather than sacrifice for the OEMs. Some of us are students still taking our notes on an X5 with 20 MB of free ROM storage. Some of us are small business owners with a 1-year old iPaq. We cannot afford to keep purchasing new devices each year; we do not receive free review models.
If we demand devices that are supported with software upgrades for a significant lifespan (not just until the next model is released), basic economics would suggest that a supply will form. It seems, however, that our ability to "demand" is being inhibited by enthusiast/community sites who advocate for OEM shareholders instead of consumers.
|
I agree fully with this poster. As rational consumers we should not be blinded by our fanboyism in how we spend our hundreds of dollars. We would be like a battered wife, constantly going back to our husband, trying our best not to provoke him, in case he leaves and kicks us out on the street.
Maybe it is best to leave...
Surur |
Oh come on......fanboyism....mvp...this has nothing to do with this is issue in the least. I think you are both trying just a little too hard to sound like someone else.  You can call me a lot of things, fandoy isn't one of them, and the MVP status runs out in a few weeks.
The simple point of the whole issue is that OEMs are going to do what is best for their bottom line.....like it or not. You can whine all you want about your rights to an upgrade....it is becoming less and less likely that you will see one. I'd like to see that happen almost as much as you two. I know it is important to a lot of people. It's just not likley going to happen.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
