Is Samsung Blocking Updates To Froyo?

jfruhlinger writes "One of the complaints about Android is its fragmentation; many different versions of the OS are out there in the wild, and often users are held back from upgrading by their hardware or their carrier. But now a disturbing rumor has it that Samsung is strong-arming T-Mobile to prevent an over-the-air upgrade to Android 2.2 (Froyo) for Samsung Vibrant owners. The reason? Samsung wants people to shell out for the new Vibrant 4G — which, other than the fact that it ships running Froyo, is largely identical to the Vibrant." Reader CWmike contributes an informative link if you'd like to know which Android vendors are actually delivering timely upgrades.

screw vies

[Speare]

I want an OTA update for my Samsung Vibrant. It's a Galaxy S on 2.1 Android, and it's a nice bit of hardware. I don't really need the upgrade but I do wonder why they're not putting anything out OTA. They are dragging their heels on the Kies update. Well, even if it were on Kies, I wouldn't use that piece of junk. Oh, wait, they don't make it for the Mac. It's silly to have such an advanced phone, which can't update itself over the air like pretty much every other smartphone in the past few years can do.

Re:Open Platform?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is the the strict parent that doesn't say they love, but makes sure all of your needs are taken care of. Google is the parent that leaves you the car keys and some cash for pizza, but also may have left the front door open when they left for their vacation.

2.2 froyo is on mine

[charnov]

My tmobile vibrant runs just fine with froyo because I put it on there. It would be nice if it was an ota update but it works great all the same.

Not Samsung... T-Mobile

[gavron]

Samsung isn't blocking, T-Mobile is. Samsung put forth the effort to develop the update. T-Mobile wants to sell more phones and new contracts.

It's bad enough the two worst cellphone carriers are making the iphone (AT&T) and android (T-Mobile) look bad... but let's not blame the manufacturers. HTC, Samsung, Motorola, and others have done a great job of providing open upgradeable platforms... AND developing upgrades for them with hardware specific vendor modifications.

Blame AT&T and T-Mobile for sucking. Samsung is ok in my book.

E

Re:The good, the bad, and the ugly

[wall0645]

Perhaps Google is just at that stage in the game. Let Android become the #1 mobile OS, and let everyone want it really bad. *Then* Google can start telling manufacturers to quit the crap, because if they don't they don't get to put the OS everyone wants on their phones. Until then they can't risk losing a potential manufacturer to Microsoft or whoever else is out there.

Froyo is here!

[WillyWanker]

The Fascinate and Acclaim just got their 2.2 updates today. Hopefully the Captivate isn't far behind.

Re:Open Platform?

[the_womble]

Exactly. There are multiple vendors with open platforms that let you install whatever OS you like. IF you care about open, you should buy one.

The specs for Archos internet tablets actually says you can install Agnstrom Linux (or another distribution) instead of Android.

I am unfortunate enough to live in a country where neither the Nexus or Archos tablets or anything else open with a tablet of smaller format seems to be available .

Re:Open Platform?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I've never seen a single person I know outside of the Slashtards give a fuck that their Android is based on open source. That's what most people around here just can't learn to accept: Most users don't give a fuck if Android, Linux, MySQL or GIMP are open source. They really really don't.

At the same time I'm just not willing to invest myself so much in the Apple cult. It's not that I think they're going to rip the floor from under me like most open source drones claim is going to happen with closed source software ("OMFG! what if teh M$ stops making Office?!?!?! You'll never be able to get your data back ever again!!!!onehundredeleven!!!"). I just don't see a reason to sync my phone up with iTunes, I have yet to see an app that I really want on my phone that doesn't have an Android counterpart (that is normally cheaper) and my phone works on my network of choice. Not everyone who's into Android does it for the same bullshit reasons that the fanbois around here do. I certainly don't. While I may take an interest in making a few apps for my phone I already know that I'm never going to publish anything to an apps store so I'm good with that but I do see where more ambitious coders may want a bit more freedom in trying to get their app published.

Re:Open Platform?

[MikeBabcock]

Those people haven't figured out how to install their own version of Android on the phone yet, that's all.

My (very old) G1 supposedly only runs 1.6, final stamp, last year. I'm running 2.2 on it right now thanks to CyanogenMod [cyanogenmod.com], as are many others.

How many roll-your-own distros are there of iOS allowing you to upgrade any old phone to the latest version? Hmmm?

Android is a silver bullet, the problem is people forget to pull the trigger.

Re:Open Platform?

[Anonymous Coward]

Regarding point 1, that's why these people talking about Android's 'openness' are on Slashdot and not some user-forum.

Regarding point 2, you basically hit the main reason at the end. I've seen more than a few programmers make over $200,000 on Android by making simple apps which offered extra hardware support, stuff the vendor didn't fully utilize (like HDMI). Try doing that on the iPhone's app store (hint: it won't be accepted, even if you can find something to extend).