Related
I was shocked to read this, but it is still up to the carrier to decide whether or not they want to release a windows phone 7 update according to this article.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3982/windows-phone-7-review/26
"Microsoft physically hosts the update, however it is the carrier’s call whether or not to release it to customers Given the ban on UI customizations and the unified hardware support, there should be no technical reason for a carrier to prevent an update from going out. The fact that Microsoft will deliver, with every update, a list of how the carrier’s own validation tests will run should guarantee that any failure to push out said update would be negligence on the carrier’s part. Microsoft went on to say that while it’s possible for a carrier to prevent a Windows Phone update from going out, it doesn’t believe it’s a likely scenario. While Microsoft didn’t say it explicitly, the implication is that Windows Phone won’t have the update issues that have plagued certain Android customers"
The situation is still better than what we get with Android, but the only thing I want my carrier in charge of us my actual wireless service.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App
why would carriers deny an update? they are not creating it so they will approve it as long as it doesn't cripples their hardware...
the reason why they don't bother with android or windows mobile is because they need to create that update themselves...re-do the skin etc which costs $$$ so they are ultra slow regarding those OS...
with microsoft doing all the hardwork, carriers need to check whether the update is good for their device or not...
ps - this is why, everyone should buy an unlocked device..
powersquad said:
why would carried deny an update? they are not creating it so they will approve it as long as it doesn't cripples their hardware...
the reason why they don't bother with android or windows mobile is because they need to create that update themselves...re-do the skin etc which costs $$$ so they are ultra slow regarding those OS...
with microsoft doing all the hardwork, carriers need to check whether the update is good for their device or not...
ps - this is why, everyone should buy an unlocked device..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They would deny it so that to get new features you have to buy a new phone...hmmm not liking this one bit..would sprint do suck a thing?
havox22 said:
They would deny it so that to get new features you have to buy a new phone...hmmm not liking this one bit..would sprint do suck a thing?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
if that happens then microsoft will tell the carriers to get lost...
powersquad said:
if that happens then microsoft will tell the carriers to get lost...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I hoping the carriers can only stop people from getting it over the air, but not through zune
Quick note - this wasn't a very clear answer in several cases. According to several sources, including Jason Dunn's site, MS will push the OS updates, not the carriers. The carriers will have the option to roll up their updates into the WP updates so there's a common distribution method. Everything I've read recently strongly implies that the carriers will not be in charge of releasing updates. Hope that gives people some hope that we'll get updates in a timely fashion as defined by MS, not the carriers (who have a horrible track record of providing OS updates).
According to Paul Therrott's conversation with MS, Carriers could hold up one and only one update. Not sure why'd they want too, but who knows.....time will tell.
From a recent interview done on Engadget on The Engadget Show, it has been said by Microsoft that they will push updates. Only the user is able to decide whether or not to update.
havox22 said:
I hoping the carriers can only stop people from getting it over the air, but not through zune
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Carriers have no say over updates through zune since it isn't using their network.
Bing launches Deals for Iphone and Android phones, not for Windows Phone 7. Also bing deals is a U.S. exclusive for now.
I'm not sure what's the intention of such a release. As a european WP7 customer and consumer I'm confused and shocked about Microsoft delivering arguments not to buy WP7 phones.
official source:
not able to post the link
"To prevent spam to the forums, ALL new users are not permitted to post outside links in their messages. After approximately eight posts, you will be able to post outside links. Thanks for understanding!"
freddy28 said:
official source:
not able to post the link
"To prevent spam to the forums, ALL new users are not permitted to post outside links in their messages. After approximately eight posts, you will be able to post outside links. Thanks for understanding!"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HAHA you just got a good old spanking, noob!
Just kidding!
I don't mind MS bringing their services to other OS's but when they make their products better on Android and iOS than they are on WP7 it really boggles my mind..
it's like onenote for iOS.. which seems to be much better with more features than on WP7..
and now this.
MS is making it harder for WP7 to compete... WHYY???
It will come to wp7 too but on ios and android it just means updating their app but as bing is built into the wp7 os it makes it hard to update without releasing a full os update.
I hope when they release the nodo or the update after they make it possible to update a single part of the os (zune,ie,bing, office etc)without having to update the whole os.
(((( im sad because of this.... will see what happens
Ganondolf said:
It will come to wp7 too but on ios and android it just means updating their app but as bing is built into the wp7 os it makes it hard to update without releasing a full os update.
I hope when they release the nodo or the update after they make it possible to update a single part of the os (zune,ie,bing, office etc)without having to update the whole os.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
dude u took the words out of my mouth... at last someone who knows what it’s all about...
guys you must understand WP7 is NEW OS.... not an upgrade from WM 6.5... and all the basic we have on our phone right now is built in....
I think by end of this year WP7 will be a better OS than its competitors...
It requires a browser that supports html 5
http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/search/archive/2011/03/03/bing-launches-deals.aspx
Since I own a Motorola Defy I feel this board is my home but if the moderators feel this post needs to be moved to another board then please do by any means.
As some of you may be aware of I've been posting my frustrations of late Froyo update from Motorola in this thread. You might not care how late and why they are late with the updates but I do because I rely on the updates to do more with my smartphone.
You may have already read that virtually there isn't any major change between Anroid 2.2 and 2.3 other than security fixes. Hello? Did you just say the majority of changes in the operating system are about security fixes? Why then the manufacturer of my handset is not ensuring my handset is safe to use then? I will try to answer this question shortly.
I don't use a smartphone for a hobby. I truly, like most of you, use my smartphone for productivity. Checking emails on the road, taking notes, instant satellite navigations, web browsing, occasional shopping, music, to read books, and document editing on the go are few to name. To do all those tasks I need to rely on a reliable network service, hardware, and the operating system that enables me to have all those software applications I need. This post is not about network services nor about hardware but I just like to say Motorola Defy has been a good phone, hardware wise, and indeed it should be able to handle Gingerbread if the 512MB RAM is not a limitation.
There are a lot of debates about mobile closed and open operating systems such as iOS and Android respectively on the internet. I'm beginning to see closed operating systems like iOS, WP, RIM, and WebOS are in fact a better choice unlike what open OS proponents have been trying to make us to believe. Ok, lets first see why Android is for free. But before that let me remind you Android is not open-sourced and in fact Google recently made it clear they are not going to let anyone see the source codes, let alone to use them (recompile). They are very public about freebies but not so public about the small prints.
Everything Google does is calculated either for a short strategy or for a long one. That is not for me to say if that is a good thing or bad. My concern is having options in the future not only for myself but also for the next generations such as your children.
Android has been given freely to handset manufacturers to build smartphones. To realise the magnitude of business opportunities Android brought to them you only need to look at the once king of mobile maker Nokia where they are today. Their out-dated Symbian OS alone did all the damage. Google is giving away Android for free to control the market in relation to their services. Dependability has always been the key factor of Google's success for as long as I remember. Google may one day even give away free handsets if that fits with their long term strategy.
At first it might appear to you Google can control the handset manufacturers since they are giving them huge business opportunities. That is far from the reality. Manufacturers also know, like most of us, why Google is giving away their OS for free and have already turned the table to their own advantage. Google recently signed an agreement with their major partners to ensure Android updates are delivered to us consumers quicker. The consumers who are vast in numbers and pay for everything are the losers in the battle of controlling the market by businesses.
In my opinion, Google has been hiding more security issues in Android than we are made to believe. They have recently covered up a serious security issue and never explained publicly how they managed to fix that other than explaining something was fixed on their server-side. I believe the problems are serious enough and if it is revealed Google’s reputation will be damaged. I have no proof as I don’t have access to Google internal documents. Admitting to Gmail security preaches that happened months ago today (3 June, 2011) is another hint that Google is not open about their security issues. Please remember, unlike your Windows machines Android does not have a built-in firewall or antivirus.
Back to the question that I asked earlier, why then the manufacturer of my handset is not ensuring my handset is safe to use then? They simply don’t want you to have the latest Android version on your handset because of their Business Model. New Android version goes on to their new handsets, at least initially. There are cases where a particular handset from a manufacturer gets all the updates. The reason behind this is that the handset in question has returned its expected profits or the handset considered as a flagship that most likely continues its pedigree. Examples of these are Samsung’s Galaxy S, Sony Ericson’s Xperia, Motorola’s Droid X. Providing updates to older flagship handsets is to keep existing customers loyal. I don’t see anything bad in this one.
I really see the advantage apple users get for not being dependent on manufacturers to get updates. The same goes to all so called closed Mobile OS. As much as it was heart breaking to hear about the Chinese boy who sold his kidney to buy iPad 2, I’m glad he didn’t buy an Android device otherwise he would have to sell something else for the software updates alone.
I already know my next phone is going to be an Android device but I will keep my eyes on the promised improvements in regards to the updates delivery and if nothing is changed then I will take my business to another company where I know I have to wait weeks not months for updates and if there is a critical security issue I don’t have to pull my battery and SIM card to protect my data.
I just thought I'd put it out there cuz I have been thinking about it. Does anyone else share my opinion that Microsoft made the Mango update tools so easy to be used by anyone (not just developers) in order to avoid the backlash they got from the entire WP7 community for the NoDo update problems?
Under the guise of putting it out there for developers only, it makes everyone who was complaining about the postponed NoDo update happy... even if carriers take another 2 years to approve the Mango update.
Anyone agree, disagree, additional thoughts?
We'd be fools to believe the carriers have started testing already on beta software, although that does seem to be a logical decision to avoid the bottlenecks of NoDo. I also don't believe Microsoft is ready to pull an Apple and distribute updates through a controlled channel. Expect more of the same, but let's hope we can upgrade to the official image with the same ease we upgraded to the beta.
I agree
I would probably agree, Microsoft is pretty willing to allow anyone to mess with their software so allowing everyone to have the update and having someone patrolling the forums reading threads about bugs and fixes, they could probably get a better idea what was wrong with the software from the entire community except from just the developers.
Partly. I would say it was more to get developers familiarized with the big jump (even though its 7.1?!).
On the other hand, everyone that is complaining is an enthusiast. General Windows Phone users don't know what NoDo is, nor do they care. So to please the enthusiast, is a good way to say: hey don't rep us bad as we're still learning. stick with us, and we'll listen.
Spoke with my lawyer. Says I have a case against samsung.
1.) Samsung faild to password protect update option
As my almost 2 year old managed to update me to 4.4 from JB 4.1.2. When I did not want 4.3 or 4.4 due to knox.
2.) The knox feature was not advertised when selling the note 2 and other phones sold prior to introducing knox to our phones.
I don't have the money to fork over legal expenses. So lawyer said if I can find more then 400 samsung users who are stuck with knox they would take the case.
If you wish to join reply to post. Once we reach 400 will contact you all with an for proper information.
Pls only use this to count yourself in. Add a comment if you wish when adding yourself but pls no chating. Will make it easy to count who's in this way.
I'm in
rogersb11 said:
I'm in
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They should have given the option when introducing 4.3 and 4.4 of having knox secure boot or not having knox at all.
I'm sure they could have introduced jb 4.3 and kk 4.4 and any other updates without knox and knox secure boot.
droideastcoast said:
They should have given the option when introducing 4.3 and 4.4 of having knox secure boot or not having knox at all.
I'm sure they could have introduced jb 4.3 and kk 4.4 and any other updates without knox and knox secure boot.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Bingo. Option is what it should be
Count on me
Throw me in the mix, can I go in twice? I have 2 notes dueces.
I'm in too.
Sent from my SGH-I317 using Tapatalk
So am I.
Tap, tap says the wicked Note +₩● ?
Kind of sad that ppl are complaining about knox secure boot and trip but no one is willing to step up and take samsung to court?
Come on guys.
This could also be the answer to removing the secure boot.
If noone steps up then samsung will continue to do this kind of crap.
In bit my Knox is tripped
I like Knox... I don't see what the big deal is. Lose the ability to root like Apple so devs have to pull a jailbreak every new version that comes out by vulnerability hunting? I've come to the conclusion that there is no need for me to root anymore. I have become the normal smartphone user who doesn't need more than what comes stock after all these years rooting and bug hunting. It is now a waste of time for me.
And you know what else?
There are millions of people who are just like me who could give a rat's ass about how Knox stops me from rooting my phone.
Before you go flaming, understand that I am talking about myself and the other millions who have no clue that XDA even exists. You can do what you need to feel better about yourself by gathering a class action lawsuit against a multi-billion corporation. Good luck with that.
[email protected] said:
I like Knox... I don't see what the big deal is. Lose the ability to root like Apple so devs have to pull a jailbreak every new version that comes out by vulnerability hunting? I've come to the conclusion that there is no need for me to root anymore. I have become the normal smartphone user who doesn't need more than what comes stock after all these years rooting and bug hunting. It is now a waste of time for me.
And you know what else?
There are millions of people who are just like me who could give a rat's ass about how Knox stops me from rooting my phone.
Before you go flaming, understand that I am talking about myself and the other millions who have no clue that XDA even exists. You can do what you need to feel better about yourself by gathering a class action lawsuit against a multi-billion corporation. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This post convinced me to join the lawsuit. That's you opinion and it'a fair,
However I like having choice, freedom, and ownership as a consumer. I don't like having updates remove and change features that I orginally paid for
Cryingmoose said:
This post convinced me to join the lawsuit. That's you opinion and it'a fair,
However I like having choice, freedom, and ownership as a consumer. I don't like having updates remove and change features that I orginally paid for
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm In
I am sorry but after reading this thread everyday I have to finally say something. You guys are trying to sue Samsung for adding security to your phone to prevent it from being easily hacked, your personal and banking information being stolen, unauthorized use, and not being able to root it and put unauthorized software on it? Got a little bit of news for you, you better start looking for some old phones on swappa and ebay because there are talks that Google is incorporating some of Knox into L OS version. Also Sprint and T-mobile have no issues rooting with the same version of Knox...so maybe you should be looking at what your carrier is doing.
And as for a 2 year old accepting the update, you had options to lock your phone with many different methods. This 2 year old accepted the option to first download it, wait while the file downloaded, then also accepted the option to install now? I do not think this lawyer has all the information. Especially when Google and Samsung on the devil's advocate side would face a much larger lawsuit if doing nothing to try and prevent the millions of non-XDA users from getting their phone hacked. Knox and locked bootloaders have nothing to do with trying to prevent the 100,000 XDA AT&T or Verizon Samsung users from rooting. It is to make the phones as secure as possible for military and business applications.
Here is sammobile's report on "L" and Knox: http://www.sammobile.com/2014/06/25...egrate-knox-into-androids-next-major-release/
KennyG123 said:
I am sorry but after reading this thread everyday I have to finally say something. You guys are trying to sue Samsung for adding security to your phone to prevent it from being easily hacked, your personal and banking information being stolen, unauthorized use, and not being able to root it and put unauthorized software on it? Got a little bit of news for you, you better start looking for some old phones on swappa and ebay because there are talks that Google is incorporating some of Knox into L OS version. Also Sprint and T-mobile have no issues rooting with the same version of Knox...so maybe you should be looking at what your carrier is doing.
And as for a 2 year old accepting the update, you had options to lock your phone with many different methods. This 2 year old accepted the option to first download it, wait while the file downloaded, then also accepted the option to install now? I do not think this lawyer has all the information. Especially when Google and Samsung on the devil's advocate side would face a much larger lawsuit if doing nothing to try and prevent the millions of non-XDA users from getting their phone hacked. Knox and locked bootloaders have nothing to do with trying to prevent the 100,000 XDA AT&T or Verizon Samsung users from rooting. It is to make the phones as secure as possible for military and business applications.
Here is sammobile's report on "L" and Knox: http://www.sammobile.com/2014/06/25...egrate-knox-into-androids-next-major-release/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's a gulf of difference between a device being advertised with a feature and shipping with it and a mandatory update installing said feature.
The carriers didn't even disclose the ramifications of installing OTAs containing Knox.
I don't have an issue with updates changing features over time but something that alters your relationship with your property in such a fashion should be opt-in and after disclosing the ramifications.
TerryMathews said:
There's a gulf of difference between a device being advertised with a feature and shipping with it and a mandatory update installing said feature.
The carriers didn't even disclose the ramifications of installing OTAs containing Knox.
I don't have an issue with updates changing features over time but something that alters your relationship with your property in such a fashion should be opt-in and after disclosing the ramifications.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
At no point did Samsung or AT&T guarantee the rootability of a device. And remember, the other millions of owners don't know about these "ramifications" as I am sure they are happy to know that their phone is more secure. Windows updates your system constantly for security updates. If that suddenly stops a Pr0n site from showing up on your PC because it is now considered malicious should they have notified you? The updates do nothing to prevent the out of the box use intended by the device. I am merely stating that this suit has no legal grounds. If you know about rooting and know about hacking, you know not to accept updates until you find out what they are. You should know ways of preventing those updates, and you should know how to secure your phone from anyone using it to accept those updates without your permission. The other millions of users out there can keep moving along blissfully happy that their phone is constantly being updated and not left in the dust.
Why should the carriers disclose that your device be more difficult to root? Rooting is not an authorized procedure supported by the carriers at all! I missed the disclosure by Sony on my PS3 that accepting the update which will allow me to access the Playstation Network is also to prevent jailbreaking it on the current revision. Add to that, read the OP...it states nothing about the carrier. It is a suit directed at Samsung. Knox does not prevent any use of the device which is authorized and supported by the carrier. Also Knox does not prevent rooting as seen on T-Mobile and Sprint forums as well as the international forums.
But I wish you guys luck with the suit and hope the lawyer is accepting this Pro Bono and no one has to dish out any non-refundable legal fees. I just wanted you all to be better informed of what you are asking.
If I'm not mistaken, the Federal government (USA) guaranteed end users the right to root access of our phones, and recently upheld that law. But does Knox really stop you from rooting it? Luckily I have avoided it because I haven't had a stock ROM for more than a few minutes on my phone since I bought it
KennyG123 said:
At no point did Samsung or AT&T guarantee the rootability of a device. And remember, the other millions of owners don't know about these "ramifications" as I am sure they are happy to know that their phone is more secure. Windows updates your system constantly for security updates. If that suddenly stops a Pr0n site from showing up on your PC because it is now considered malicious should they have notified you? The updates do nothing to prevent the out of the box use intended by the device. I am merely stating that this suit has no legal grounds. If you know about rooting and know about hacking, you know not to accept updates until you find out what they are. You should know ways of preventing those updates, and you should know how to secure your phone from anyone using it to accept those updates without your permission. The other millions of users out there can keep moving along blissfully happy that their phone is constantly being updated and not left in the dust.
Why should the carriers disclose that your device be more difficult to root? Rooting is not an authorized procedure supported by the carriers at all! I missed the disclosure by Sony on my PS3 that accepting the update which will allow me to access the Playstation Network is also to prevent jailbreaking it on the current revision. Add to that, read the OP...it states nothing about the carrier. It is a suit directed at Samsung. Knox does not prevent any use of the device which is authorized and supported by the carrier. Also Knox does not prevent rooting as seen on T-Mobile and Sprint forums as well as the international forums.
But I wish you guys luck with the suit and hope the lawyer is accepting this Pro Bono and no one has to dish out any non-refundable legal fees. I just wanted you all to be better informed of what you are asking.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is a difference between guaranteeing a product's suitability for given task and actively working to reduce that capability.
For instance, let's look at car recalls. Some of them impact how your car behaves, its gas mileage, or its service schedule. Ever notice how the dealer needs your consent before modifying your vehicle?
Your example of Windows Update is equally flawed. Windows Update is an opt-in service which in fact reinforces my earlier point that Knox or system updates in general should be opt-in or at least have a provision for opt-out that doesn't involve rooting your device.
Court cases aren't decided on popularity. If they were, Roe v. Wade would have gone a very different direction (as an example).
I hope you're not a lawyer Kenny...
Honestly... there's no point in arguing. Whomever goes and does this lawsuit, have fun, good luck, and I hope no money comes out of your own pocket. Your XDA soap box will get you nowhere so go out and do what you have to do to get your rocks off. Even if you even do succeed, enjoy the years of counter-suits and appeals.
TerryMathews said:
There is a difference between guaranteeing a product's suitability for given task and actively working to reduce that capability.
For instance, let's look at car recalls. Some of them impact how your car behaves, its gas mileage, or its service schedule. Ever notice how the dealer needs your consent before modifying your vehicle?
Your example of Windows Update is equally flawed. Windows Update is an opt-in service which in fact reinforces my earlier point that Knox or system updates in general should be opt-in or at least have a provision for opt-out that doesn't involve rooting your device.
Court cases aren't decided on popularity. If they were, Roe v. Wade would have gone a very different direction (as an example).
I hope you're not a lawyer Kenny...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is no further point in arguing with you as clearly you are not a lawyer either. No one mentioned popularity. Your arguments are misconstrued and have nothing to do with the focus of the lawsuit. You should reread the "opening statement" a 2 year old "accepted" the update meaning optional, not mandatory, and there are ways for anyone who can search to not accept the OTA or update.
Have a nice day and good luck. As I stated earlier, Knox is now moving to Google and the next version of Android and it also does not prevent rooting if you would just check out the other carriers. This is the main flaw in this law suit. Lawyered