The Way Phone Upgrades Should Be Done

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2343326,00.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,281...,2343326,00.asp</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"Never mind the cut and paste. Never mind the picture messaging, or all the other stuff that should have been in iPhone 1.0. Never mind the new payment methods that will shake up the mobile shopping marketplace. The most radical thing Apple said at the iPhone 3.0 software release was: "The upgrade will be available for free, this summer, to all iPhone owners." Why can't any other smart phone vendors do this?"</em></p><p>My fellow <a href="http://www.mobiussite.com" target="_blank">Mobius</a> alumni Sascha Segan nails Microsoft and RIM to the wall in his article, and he's 100% right. There are many reasons why I prefer Windows Mobile to the iPhone, but I'll give credit where credit is due: Apple's ability to easily upgrade the phones of its users is exactly the way things should work, and it makes the rest of the industry, especially Microsoft, look ridiculous in comparison.<MORE /></p><p>Everyone has been harping on Microsoft to improve this since the very first Pocket PC operating system patch came out. Even if you were lucky enough as a user to be "blessed" with the official operating system upgrade, or even an AKU (think service pack), it would wipe out your device, forcing you to re-configure everything from scratch. Compound that problem with the complete lack of intelligent sync of settings - things like pushing down email account settings from Outlook - and you'd end up with an upgraded phone that would take a good hour or more to get back up to functioning status.</p><p>That problem is one of the main reasons why I hardly use any third party applications on my devices any more - it's just too frustrating and time consuming to get it back to the way it was before the upgrade. I often use the example when talking to Windows Mobile team members of desktop Windows: "What would you think if, when a Windows Service Pack came out, you had to re-format your hard drive to install it?". No one ever had a good answer for me because that would be sheer insanity to require that in the desktop world - yet in the mobile world, Microsoft deems it perfectly acceptable.</p><p>The upgrade story, in this era of software-focused smartphones, is perhaps the single worst thing about Windows Mobile. There are signs on the horizon that this is going to change, but I've been fed the Microsoft party line of "We're working on that..." so many times I refuse to believe it's going to get any better until it actually happens.</p>

[SassKwatch]

Don't you think Apple is able to accomplish this largely because they control the hardware *and* the software??

In general, I certainly agree with the overall gist of what you're saying and would LOVE to see the same functionality on WM, I just don't know how MS would do it with such varied h/w out there.(??)

What has puzzled me at times is why MS seems so reticent to the idea of developing their own hardware. And I've pretty much reached the conclusion it's out of fear of another MAJOR lawsuit.

[Janak Parekh]

Don't you think Apple is able to accomplish this largely because they control the hardware *and* the software?? That's part of the reason. But it's clearly more than that -- why can't RIM do it? ;) In fact, the author of the article points this exact comparison out and accepts the fact MS has a bigger challenge.

In general, I certainly agree with the overall gist of what you're saying and would LOVE to see the same functionality on WM, I just don't know how MS would do it with such varied h/w out there.(??) Abstraction. The 3 end-user updates (EUUs) released after Pocket PC 2002 were identical across devices, and they applied just fine. Why did they go backwards instead of forwards? Of course, they can't update hardware-related things or the phone stack, but pure software items like IE should be upgradeable.

I also love the fact that I have yet to wipe+reinstall my iPhone software and configuration, despite something like 6 updates across two different devices (the 2G and the 3G). I've never had a mobile device that upgraded and migrated so cleanly before.

--janak

[kdarling]

Not a fair comparison.

WM started on tiny screens, serial port comms, very little memory, and certainly not much room to load updates.

Apple waited until there was broadband (phone and host computer), affordable memory, and has no legacy phones or hundreds of vendors to deal with.

If WM was written right now, instead of a decade ago, things might well be different. Which is a different set of comments.

[emuelle1]

Once I heard the iPhone 3.0 update would be free, I was ready to jump platform. I like some of what Windows Mobile does better, but I'm getting fed up with the instability.

I've been through 5 or 6 updates on my iPod Touch in the last year, including the major upgrade to the 2.0 firmware, and not a single song or setting got lost. It still remembers hotel wireless networks.

I've come to the conclusion that the "Windows Update" feature that comes with WM 6/6.1 is for decoration purposes only. It's as useless as the HP update utility for my printer that has to run 3 times a week and NEVER finds an update.

[Russ Smith]

I mostly agree with the commentary. Microsoft should "modularize" WM to the point where the base OS can upgrade across all platforms. Each OEM would have to think about updating what would essentially be the GUI and some support software. That still leaves the problem of having an upgrade reset the entire machine. Basically, the Registry is the issue. When you make major changes in the OS, the easiest way to deal with it is to restart the Registry. The "solution" to that problem is for Microsoft to go in reverse, abandon the Registry, and revert to the days when each application had it's own installation data file.

On the other hand, as always, Microsoft and Apple have gone in two very different directions. Microsoft provides the OS and base applications, while the OEMs provide the hardware, support software, and additional apps. It's aimed at selling the software. Apple provides the hardware, OS, basic apps, support software, etc. All the Service Provider provides is the bandwidth for the device to connect. It's aimed at selling the hardware.

The fact that Apple controls both software and hardware makes this kind of an update easy.

Still, I'll give Apple credit. It's not at all typical for an update from Apple to be free. It's not typical for Apple to update software without hardware driving it (and thus forcing the user to upgrade the hardware to get the software). It's also not at all typical for Apple to listen to it's users. (Apple usually tells you what you want rather than the other way around.)

I do hope that Microsoft and all the WM vendors take a serious look at this and try to emulate it. I'll probably never own an iPhone (no memory card support, etc.), but I would like to see WM get more update friendly as a result of the competition.

[griph]

I also love the fact that I have yet to wipe+reinstall my iPhone software and configuration, despite something like 6 updates across two different devices (the 2G and the 3G). I've never had a mobile device that upgraded and migrated so cleanly before.

100% agree with you Janak - after many years and many many WM devices, I have largely migrated over to iPhone 3G and very much looking forward to v3.0 in summer. :)

I think the answer is in the bewildering array of WM devices and widespread independent changes in hardware - with the various bolt on interfaces that hardware manufacturers are being forced to add in order to compete with the simple but effective iPhone interface.

This is all about compromise - keeping control of hardware and software may seem to some as a draconian measure, but I for one would have accepted it, if I could have had the iPhone 'model' developed by WM years ago witout the compromised design we now have!:(

I have had my iPhone since early december and am already on my 3rd ROM update (2.21) - and another significant one is on the way. WM manufacturers (including HTC) churn out so many 'disposable' models and variations so quickly now they have clearly decided that ROM upgrades will only ever be offered where unavoidable - if at all. It just isn't worth their while!!

Something needs to change as WM ad their hardware manufacturers appear to be building themselves into a blind branch of the evolutionary ladder - extinction could come quickly!

[Marcel_Proust]

I visit sometimes out of nostalgia (just like I've kept my old 1st gen palm, my commodore vic20 etc.) and to see if I should have any regrets in having jumped to the iPhone.
There are still some ; the iPhone os is not quite as powerful and still missing some very capable programs that winmo developers had come to over many years.
But it's slick, stable, a pleasure to use, and catching up in capability. And Apple treats you well (or better than most at least), for example this upgrade.

[Janak Parekh]

Not a fair comparison.

WM started on tiny screens, serial port comms, very little memory, and certainly not much room to load updates. Then why has the update scenario for WM gotten worse over the years? Back in the 2000/2002 days, we could expect End-User Updates and firmware updates. I had several for my iPAQ 3650 and 3870, and despite the reinstallation hassle, I was glad this was the case. Since 2003, the upgrade scenarios have gotten much, much rarer.

--janak

[Janak Parekh]

Still, I'll give Apple credit. It's not at all typical for an update from Apple to be free. It's not typical for Apple to update software without hardware driving it (and thus forcing the user to upgrade the hardware to get the software). It's also not at all typical for Apple to listen to it's users. (Apple usually tells you what you want rather than the other way around.) In this case, I think they realize the value of a single platform. It encourages developer adoption of new APIs. In some sense, one could argue that the long-overdue features in iPhone 3.0 are more of an enticement for consumers to upgrade to ensure that all iPhones/iPod touches are running one API platform.

Re Apple listening to its users: it does, actually, quite frequently. The problem is it often ignores it too. ;) Then of course, so does Microsoft. :( Are they ever going to fix WMP?

--janak

[Bob Anderson]

Apple obviously has economic interest in spurring further applications for the iPhone platform, since applications **must** be bought/downloaded from the app store. This is the upside of that continual economic benefit to Apple - they have a vested interest in keeping the platform as capable as ever so that more and more customers buy more and more diverse applications. So paying to get apps from the app store, is in essence funding OS upgrades.

Microsoft is not in this position. They make money from selling licenses; no residual income is derived from devices once that license is sold. So once they established market share doing the EUU updates, etc., became less important than doing what licensee's wanted - and hence the drought of updates.

Of course the architecture of WM isn't necessarily update friendly either - and that's because, IMHO, they didn't do a good job thinking about how to do it, given their economic interests (and frankly, if I were in the same shoes, I'd probably do the same ting.)

Hopefully, the execs at MSFT are watching this, and since we know WM7 won't be seen until sometime next year, they have plenty of time to figure out a "better way" to serve the market and make money. Kudos to Apple for the way they are handling this particular thorn; I don't often agree with their tactics, but this is one where they win (more consistent APIs for broader development) and the customer wins by not having a outdated phone in 1 year's time.

[Paragon]

Talking about updates, not complete OS upgrades, this can be done. Going back awhile to when I was an MVP, I asked this question at a summit, and was informed that even back then MS had the ability to flash ROMs at the file level. Thereby killing the need to reformat a device. I was told that the problem was in getting the carriers to do so....take it for what it's worth.

Comparing the iPhone upgrade process to Windows Mobile is far from comparing apples to apples. There is basically one iPhone made under the control of Apple and sold to carriers. For Windows Mobile there are something like 75 OEMs selling dozens and dozens of different devices, each with there own specific ROM. Microsoft simply sell licenses to the OEMs. The OEMs are Microsoft's customers, and although they work rather closely with carriers they really aren't their customers, making it a bit difficult for Microsoft to make many demands on how they interact with their customers. Especially when Microsoft's business model is to sell those licenses. I think if we should be banging on anyone's door it should be the carriers. However as a carrier, they aren't in the business to sell software, firmware, or for that matter not even hardware. They only sell hardware to better enable them to sell what their real product is......AIRTIME.

As much as I would love to see this all change, I just don't see it happening. We've bitched and complained for several years and have made zero headway.

Don't forget about all those cooked ROMs out there. Most nowadays are very stable, with many more features built in then stock ROMs, and they have dozens of free upgrades. ;)

Dave

[Jason Dunn]

Don't you think Apple is able to accomplish this largely because they control the hardware *and* the software??

Yes, absolutely - and there's also the fact that Apple really only has one hardware design (with two radio variations). That gives them a *huge* advantage. But Microsoft has has had about 8 years to figure this puzzle out from their end, and there's been ZERO improvements thus far.

What has puzzled me at times is why MS seems so reticent to the idea of developing their own hardware. And I've pretty much reached the conclusion it's out of fear of another MAJOR lawsuit.

Microsoft builds platforms and ecosystems - that's what they're good at. With enough tenacity and money, they can make a success out of their own hardware (Xbox 360), but in general that's not what they're good at.

[Bob Anderson]

But Microsoft has has had about 8 years to figure this puzzle out from their end, and there's been ZERO improvements thus far.


I couldn't agree more Jason! We can dissect the situation and make excuses all we want, but users have complained since the "beginning" and Microsoft still doesn't have a workable solution. I remember one of the "cool" aspects of the iPaq 5455 that I bought was that it had more ROM than the OS needed - we were told (not officially mind you) by Compaq and Microsoft that the added ROM would ease upgrades and wasn't just for the FileStore feature Compaq sold it as. Yeah, whatever! Even though MSFT had extra room to play with they never used it!

I place 99.8% of the problem squarely on Microsoft's shoulders here. When they had a chance to work with hardware manufacturers they didn't. Now they say hardware gets in the way! Whatever - get over it and make something workable for a change!

[Jason Dunn]

WM started on tiny screens, serial port comms, very little memory, and certainly not much room to load updates.

Right. But as times changed, Microsoft didn't adapt their model. They stuck with the same "release code to OEMs/carriers, hope they want to release it to cusomters" approach. They got lazy. They didn't invest.

And, even if you take the update availability out of the equation, you're still left with the methodology for the updates - Microsoft has yet to put any effort into making device updates remotely pleasant for customers lucky enough to get them in the first place.

[Jason Dunn]

Apple obviously has economic interest in spurring further applications for the iPhone platform, since applications **must** be bought/downloaded from the app store...Microsoft is not in this position. They make money from selling licenses; no residual income is derived from devices once that license is sold.

That's a really interesting point Bob - one that I hadn't considered. It's a no-brainer to me that if you have a poor device update story, the customer won't be happy, and that translates into lost future sales of your partner's devices. It also means your operating system will get slagged by everyone for having such a bad experience...but some people at Microsoft evidently didn't think/care about that years back, so perhaps that's exactly how we ended up where we are today. :rolleyes:

[Jason Dunn]

I've come to the conclusion that the "Windows Update" feature that comes with WM 6/6.1 is for decoration purposes only.

Yeah, the Windows Update function is laughable. :rolleyes: It was added in so Microsoft would have a mechanism by which they could distribute emergency security fixes - but to my knowledge, they've only done that once (for a Messenger bug). They didn't even use it to push out DST fixes!

It's as useless as the HP update utility for my printer that has to run 3 times a week and NEVER finds an update.

Ah, I have that software too - if you start it up manually then click on SETTINGS, you should be able to tell it to check once every 90 days.

[Jason Dunn]

I visit sometimes out of nostalgia (just like I've kept my old 1st gen palm, my commodore vic20 etc.) and to see if I should have any regrets in having jumped to the iPhone...

I appreciate you coming back here, but I haven't seen you over on Apple Thoughts - there's where you should be! :D

[SassKwatch]

Abstraction. The 3 end-user updates (EUUs) released after Pocket PC 2002 were identical across devices, and they applied just fine. Why did they go backwards instead of forwards? Of course, they can't update hardware-related things or the phone stack, but pure software items like IE should be upgradeable.

Believe me, I'm not entirely comfortable sounding like I'm defending MS. WM, and MS's treatment of it, have been an enigma to me for quite some time. And I'm just trying to understand how they might mimic the simplicity for the end user that Apple has achieved......w/o starting over from square one.

As to the above, I'm inclined to think at least some of that is due to the carriers, no? I can't believe the amount of crap installed on the AT&T Tilt that I'll never use, but seemingly have no ability to remove w/o resorting to some unsupported ROM hack.

In a way, it almost seems as though MS has painted themselves into a corner with the current model. If they change it drastically, they'll probably p.o. a goodly number of carriers who just might dump anything with WM on it.....or at least threaten to do so. If they don't, they're probably in danger of becoming little more than a footnote in mobile device history.

[Jason Dunn]

As to the above, I'm inclined to think at least some of that is due to the carriers, no?

Oh yeah, absolutely - the carriers are a HUGE barrier to Microsoft being able to do what they want to do with these devices. Only Apple has thus far had the power to make AT&T bend over and...well, you know. :D Apple tells AT&T what to do with the iPhone, and they do it. Microsoft probably doesn't need to go QUITE that far, but they do need to flex some muscles and take more ownership of the operating system on the phone. It says WINDOWS, so people have some concept of what that means...and being ignored from an update perspective isn't one of them.

[Janak Parekh]

As to the above, I'm inclined to think at least some of that is due to the carriers, no? I can't believe the amount of crap installed on the AT&T Tilt that I'll never use, but seemingly have no ability to remove w/o resorting to some unsupported ROM hack. Yeah, I think it's a combination of OEMs and carriers "not wanting to". HP stopped releasing updates even before WM phones were prevalent.

Part of the problem is, I fear, that the three-tier (software, OEM, carrier) model makes it very difficult to gain concessions. Microsoft has two parties to convince, and if both the OEM and carrier consider it a support nightmare (or just not cost-worthy), well, that's a lot harder than Apple's situation. Apple also has a direct consumer connection, unlike OEMs, so AT&T can in theory just point the customer to Apple (e.g., if a ROM update fails), whereas finger-pointing in a three-tier situation is much harder.

This, unfortunately, makes me think that WM7 can't be a major improvement in the update arena. I'd be happy to be wrong, though.

--janak

[V-iPAQ]

htc gives htc updates for free...
as do some other makers
nothing to do with Microsoft.

as for rim, meh.. who really cares?

[Rob Alexander]

I'm usually pretty critical of MS in these discussions, but this just isn't one that gets my back up. There are many things about WM that I hate worse than this. I'm not even sure if this would be in my top ten. Maybe it's because I get so few updates, but I don't do it often enough for it to really bother me that I have to reinstall my apps. I just look at it as a chance to clean out the stuff I don't want any more. It would be nice if we had non-destructive updates like Apple, but we don't, and we never will, and so that's just one of the tradeoffs you make when you make any product choice. I get multitasking, they get easy updates. I get the apps I need, they get a better UI. I can talk in rural areas, they can talk overseas. It all balances out in the end.

[Twain]

Seems to me that everyone has forgotten about the biggest elephant in the room: the need to completely sever the link between the carriers and hardware.


All I really want from my carrier is the following and ONLY the following:

airtime (voice and broadband data)
a primo network
assisted GPS (unlocked, thank you)
ability to use phone as a modem
ability to use wi-fi networks
deliver text and media (video, image) messages
possibly TV, like Sprint offers
I don't want carrier apps preinstalled, a pre-chosen browser other than IE mobile installed or any other software that cannot be removed. I have Verizon and right now, their offerings SUCK!! And that's not a term normally in my vocabulary. Currently, their Windows Mobile offerings are:

a "Verizon wireless" XV6900 (I've no idea who makes this or what it is)
Samsung Omnia
Samsung SCH-i760 (I might have bought this two years ago)
Samsung Saga
crippled HTC Touch Pro (with weird keyboard and only 192 MB memory)
How pitiful is that?? This link needs to be broken so that I can select from a larger set of devices of my choosing: namely the Palm Treo Pro or an unmolested HTC Touch Pro or even a CDMA version of the Samsung SGH-i780. Microsoft wants to introduce outlet stores to showcase the innovation going on? Fine. I can tell you Verizon will never offer up any of that innovation. Those innovative phones will simply sit on the shelves, waiting to be selected by Verizon.

Why should I have to put up with the fact that Verizon simply chooses not to offer any of the above mentioned phones (or any others in which I might be interested?) They are clearly heavily marketing the Blackberry Storm right now and if users want anything else, forget it. Oh I didn't mention that you can't even walk into a Verizon store and look at the HTC Touch Pro. It is only available by Internet! What kind of $$##@! is that??

Anyway, until the keys drop off of my Treo 700W (yes, you read that correctly, I am still using that old war horse) or until Verizon finally introduces a phone which has significant amounts of RAM in an uncrippled phone or until I decide that I've had enough and migrate to another carrier, I will just keep using my old Treo.

The point of this rant is that until the carriers lose their ability to dictate what phones are offered, I'm not going to worry about whether or not updates are offered. There is a bigger battle to fight!

[nmcclana]

Clearly msft has been letting users down for a few years now. my winmo works for me (I accept the bad with the good), but I recognize that it doesn't work for most people. I don't see 6.5 changing much other than the today screen. The same core problems remain. And PLEASE, will someone fix pocket wmp?

[k1darkknight]

With enough tenacity and money, they can make a success out of their own hardware (Xbox 360), but in general that's not what they're good at.
Maybe they should put the team that launched the 360 (or at least part of that team) on relaunching Windows Mobile. Now follow me on this one.
Between the iPhone and the new Toshiba TG01 (and ever-dropping prices on SDHC cards), the potential hardware capabilities exist for what I'd propose. The iPhone comes in 8GB and 16GB flavors, with the iPod Touch also having a 32GB variety. The TG01 has a processor that runs at 1GHz, based on an entirely new chip, indicating that faster versions of said chip might be possible in the near future. (near, in relative, WM terms, meaning in the next few years, of course. ;) )

I submit that, given the hardware that OEMs CAN (but don't yet) use, it would be possible to make a phone using an entirely new OS, that could emulate either the entire WM 6.x OS, or at least enough of it to run most WM 2002 through 6.x apps. The handful of apps that have very specific (and high-end) hardware requirements, like a graphics processor, would likely not work in this environment, but that would account for a VERY small percentage of existing WM apps. Others that use device- or brand- specific hardware would likely receive new OS versions. With the Xbox, Microsoft has proved that they CAN break in to markets dominated by other companies.

I think the best strategy in this case, is to actually work something out more akin to PC development. MS provides the OS and core apps (office mobile, et al). They get a couple/few chip makers to make VERY specific chips and chipsets (like Snapdragon). They would insist on certain minimum hardware features from OEMs, and work with them on getting phones released in a TIMELY MANNER. Finally, they'd need to figure out a strategy to get electronics retailers (or e-tailers) to offer at least a handful of the new phones, while still encouraging carriers to offer service-subsidized phones.
On the software side, they could create their equivalent of the "app store", but in order to continue encouraging smaller developers, they'd allow developers to offer freeware and shareware through their store. For that matter, they could even contract with one of the larger WM software retailers (like Handango, or somesuch) to convert their site to the new WM store.

I realize all this would require significant investment, and would represent a pretty big gamble on the part of Microsoft. But then again, who'd have thought, almost 7 1/2 years ago, that a software company could produce a (hardware) game system that would come to dominate THAT market?

Back to the topic at hand, if Microsoft did all (or most of) the above, particularly issuing VERY specific minimum requirements to OEMs, it would be a MUCH simpler matter to offer upgrades and/or updates. For that matter, in that scenario, updates COULD even be sent over the (3G) networks, directly to the devices. You wouldn't even need to sync up to your computer, to download updates!

[Lord_Zelo]

If they can do it with XP/Vista/etc., then why not Windows Mobile? These operating systems are installed on millions of computers the world over and they roll out updates monthly if not weekly and everything works just fine. People have up-to-date computers and everyone is happy. Why didn't they implement "Windows Mobile Update" back in the day when it first popped up with Win98? It's beyond me why the upgrade process for WinMobile has been an epic failure on Microsofts part. I'd still take WinMo over iPhone OS any day of the week though.

Would it be so hard to add a "Check For Updates" feature to Activesync/WMDC? Or keep a database of drivers for phone hardware? I wouldn't think so. It would help all the companies that make devices based around WinMo AND most importantly, make it a more popular platform.

I'll keep dreaming...

[crimsonsky]

as for rim, meh.. who really cares?

Those of use who use and enjoy our BlackBerries! I still use my Wing as a PDA only, but my Blackberry Curve is my main communications device.

I've only owned a BB for a few months and T-Mobile has only offered one (significant) update. Same thing with my Wing - only one update was ever offered for it. T-Mobile doesn't seem to be particularly aggressive in providing updates for its phones. Obviously, they'd prefer you buy a new phone to get more features.

I agree that Apple's model for updates is neigh perfect and they are certainly aggressive in developing them. I'm just not a huge fan of touchscreens and have shied away from the iPhone for this reason, plus the fact that all the functionality I enjoy with WM devices still isn't there yet for the iPhone. The BlackBerry is a wonderful communications device, but still doesn't offer the functionality of WM which is why I still use my Wing as a PDA.

[stevew]

The whole update thing for WM is what finally drove me to the iPhone. Every time an update came out I either had to wait to hear if my device was going to get the update, most times it wasn't and I had to purchase a new device to get the upgrade. Even then I was always disappointed because the update didn't amount to much or caused some other problem. If my device was chosen for an update I had to purchase a back up program, wipe my device clean then if the update didn't turn my device into a brick I had to spend all that time reconfiguring the device. Not only that but MS has never had a sync program that was worth anything either.

With the iphone I dock the device, click update, itunes automatically backs up everything, updates the device and then restores everything including even the smallest of settings. 10 minutes and you're done.

iPhone 3.0 is coming out I don't have to keep checking all the forums for someone who may have some inside information on my device and if it's going to be upgradable. Now I already know exactly what to expect.

[Phillip Dyson]

I agree that for the most part it seems like MS is damsel here. But in their OEM license model, they have just as much to lose by prolongng the life of a device. Eveytime they update a device, that is a potential lost sale on a new one.
If OEMs increase their development cycle due to longer device life span, then that means fewer licensing fees for MS.
The only way that a OEM might be able to of set that is to come up with more hardware variations to lure people away from their, still up to date, device.

Apple on the other hand, as several other have said, maintains a constant revenue flow through the App Store, ITunes, and revenue sharing with carriers (if they're still doing that).