Firmware updates play a major part on how a handset appears to the user and in general adds to the user experience, it's an essential part of creating a more positive opinion of a handset.
Why are the big boys doing it wrong more frequently?Apple we all know likes to update the iPhone more frequently than most others do their products, and although they don't actually add the features the users have been asking for, the majority of the time the update is a simple process and goes smooth enough.
Whilst the same can't be said for Nokia, one has to take into consideration their many different models and various different regional product codes - something the iPhone doesn't have to deal with. Although it can be presumed it's more of an effort putting out a firmware update and making sure all different regions get an adequate update - how on earth can one device be left out from all the others which seem to have an update available. For this specific problem I am referring to
@munkimatt and
@gerrymoth (editor of
NokiAAddict) who cannot for some reason or another
update their recently purchased 5800 XpressMusic UK Red (where Munkimatt's is a SIM Free model.) So far there hasn't been an explanation why it doesn't have the update?
But Nokia's problem does not end here - for those that have updated either via NSU or OTA there doesn't seem to be any uniform standard to the updates - some find it via NSU and others via OTA, is this down to the operator? Which brings me to my next point. How can Google mess up an update for an Open Source handset by leaving it at the mercy of an operator?
More Power to the Operator - baad!If you believe this post on
GAB it would seem that T-Mobile is solely responsible for delivering the updates for the G1. For too long operators have had it their way and for a long time they dictated what the user got and when they got it (and in a lot of cases they had to use their wallets to get it). So what is the sense in Google allowing T-Mobile control of the firmware roll out, especially considering this is their first handset? Apple surely would no way have done anything like this happen - they had O2 bend over backwards to get the iPhone exclusively and still had control over what gets installed on it - thus keeping their users happier by having the ability to control what they experienced. Although the iPhone is a closed OS, the key issue here is this: If the user experiences a negative view from using the handset they aren't going to blame the operator - in the case of the G1 if the firmware tends to be buggy or the OS just doesn't live up to expectations they aren't going to change operator, but handset. So if Google doesn't have any control over the firmware and when it's deployed (I'm going on the basis of believing the post on GAB) they get negative press for something they don't have control over.
My main concern here is that in general operators are way behind what the current technology offers, their price plans, tariff structures and horrendous branding just go to show what they're in the market for - making the most amount of money until someone realises and tells them to stop doing it or else!
Take the issue with roaming charges in the EU - they were raking it in before told to stop being greedy. They offer unlimited data but cap it by hiding behind some "fair usage policy" bullshit. They offer 24 month contracts on price plans - how ancient is that? In this day and age when the mobile market moves so quickly, in 24 months both the handset and tariff become ancient. They have enough power as it is - giving them more is just not in the interest of the consumer - and in the long term not in the interest of the handset manufacturer either.
