Jason Dunn
11-10-2010, 02:00 AM
<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/08/editorial-should-your-next-mobile-os-update-cost-you/' target='_blank'>http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/08/...pdate-cost-you/</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"All too often, the question isn't whether a particular device is great, it's whether the manufacturer and carrier have committed to upgrading it -- quite often to a version of its operating system that hasn't officially been announced. It's a recipe for confusion and paralysis among consumers that really don't have a great reason to be putting off their purchases -- they just want a reasonable assurance that their new phones aren't going to be regarded as "obsolete" in six or nine months. And why shouldn't they?"</em></p><p><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/wpt/auto/1289323908.usr1.jpg" style="border: 0;" /></p><p>A really thought-provoking piece from Engadget's Chris Ziegler - he proposes that, since smartphone hardware has largely plateaued in terms of baseline features, it's time to for software to take on a larger role in the ecosystem. Part of that is for companies to charge for new versions of an operating system. Myself, I'd have no problem at all with this - assuming, and that's the key word here, that operating system updates were delivered in a reliable manner that would work a variety of hardware...and would be unencumbered by mobile operator bloatware. We pay for new operating systems on our desktops and laptops, so why not on our phones? <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/08/editorial-should-your-next-mobile-os-update-cost-you/" target="_blank">Vote in the poll that Engadget has set up</a> - and sound off here on why you would, or would not, be willing to pay for a new OS for your phone.</p>