HTC explains that your late update is probably your carrier’s fault

HTC posts software update dashboard, infographic of the Android update process.

Read the whole story

 

[windnwar]

If it involves Verizon, take the time frame of the next slowest carrier process and double it. That has pretty much been my experience. The Moto X being the only exception. If I didn't need the coverage they provide, I'd never buy a phone from them again.

 

[Hat Monster]

It makes so much more sense to just purchase your device outright and then get a SIM-only plan from a carrier - assuming they offer such a deal. Here in the UK, all four major carriers have pretty much blanket coverage, so that's not even a problem.

Can the carriers not see that their inefficiency is relegating their best use to "dumb pipe", the one thing they're trying to avoid?

It's why I went and stumped up for a Nexus 5. That's now mine, not a thing any carrier can do about it, I was then able to shop around for the best SIM-only deal - something the carriers don't want me doing. All the money they spend on handset exclusivity and special subsidies is giving me a worse experience, and as their customer, it's best if I avoid that completely.

 

[MMcCraryNJ]

windnwar[/url]":czyumzk1]If it involves Verizon, take the time frame of the next slowest carrier process and double it. That has pretty much been my experience. The Moto X being the only exception. If I didn't need the coverage they provide, I'd never buy a phone from them again.

If AT&T isn't great in your area just yet, I'd keep my eye peeled over the coming months. I'm a former Verizon customer that switched over to them last week, and my LTE speeds and voice coverage are much better. It's my belief that they are quickly catching up to Verizon in terms of coverage area, and already have them beat on data speeds.

 

[zamroni]

Why need certification for smartphone software update? Does Wifi or WWAN drivers for Windows also need certification?

 

[Hat Monster]

zamroni[/url]":1pgcwfkk]Why need certification for smartphone software update? Does Wifi or WWAN drivers for Windows also need certification?

Yes. WHQL certification has been around for years and years. It's just MUCH faster (MS takes it seriously) than the half-assed efforts by cellular carriers. They're geared around selling, not supporting.

If a driver is not WHQL certified, it cannot be included in a "Designed for Windows" machine, and most top-tier OEMs won't touch it with a ten foot pole. If the driver isn't included, you can bet the hardware it enables isn't going to be a design win either.

 

[Muon]

MMcCraryNJ[/url]":3ucmcnbd]

windnwar[/url]":3ucmcnbd]If it involves Verizon, take the time frame of the next slowest carrier process and double it. That has pretty much been my experience. The Moto X being the only exception. If I didn't need the coverage they provide, I'd never buy a phone from them again.

If AT&T isn't great in your area just yet, I'd keep my eye peeled over the coming months. I'm a former Verizon customer that switched over to them last week, and my LTE speeds and voice coverage are much better. It's my belief that they are quickly catching up to Verizon in terms of coverage area, and already have them beat on data speeds.

Never thought I'd see the day someone recommended AT&T...

 

[AkeemMcLennon]

Hat Monster[/url]":3r70b7cm]It makes so much more sense to just purchase your device outright and then get a SIM-only plan from a carrier - assuming they offer such a deal. Here in the UK, all four major carriers have pretty much blanket coverage, so that's not even a problem.

Yes, that makes complete sense in the UK. However, in the USA, you're usually better off financially if you choose to buy from the carrier.

Among the carriers mentioned in this article, only one of them (T-mobile) change their pricing based on whether or not you choose to accept the subsidy. If for example, I paid $600 to buy an unlocked phone on Verizon, my monthly plan remains exactly the same as if I had chosen to buy the same phone for $200 with them directly. Sure, I'm locked into a two year contract, but if I was going to remain with them anyway, it's really a moot point.

I'm not saying that the state of carriers in the United States is ideal (it certainly isn't). However, I keep hearing this argument over and over again when it really doesn't even apply to most of the carriers mentioned in this article.

 

[Chemical Tribe]

Maybe they should have a picture of a HTC One S and show graphically how after one update HTC doesn't give a shit.

"The anatomy of an HTC update on a non flagship phone: None"

 

[Silellak]

Don't forget that, from what I understand, carriers actually charge OEMS for testing the software update - so if an OEM wants to update their phone, they get to pay AT&T/Verizon/etc. for the "privilege" of doing so. This goes a long way toward explaining why only flagships get updated, and even then, only for so long.

It really is a shame that the terrible carrier certification process likely means that Android OEMs will never have the kind of flexibility that Apple enjoys with their update process.

 

[mrsilver]

Speaking as someone who used to work with HTC, if an HTC handset doesn't get an update in any market then the problem isn't the carrier.

If you now go and look for those handsets, you'll find quite a lot of them.

TLDR; version. The carrier accreditation process may be a slow pain in the butt - however HTC haven't helped themselves in getting the reputation for dropping support for handsets almost as soon as they've launched.

 

[Batmanuel]

Nokia did the same thing when they released the Amber update for Windows Phone:

http://www.nokia.com/global/support/sof ... h-america/

I haven't seen a similar page for Black yet, however.

 

[daneren2005]

sprockkets[/url]":2ixxga1s]Maybe they should have a picture of a HTC One S and show graphically how after one update HTC doesn't give a shit.

"The anatomy of an HTC update on a non flagship phone: None"

Unfortunately they have shown that they don't care about their flagships either. The HTC One X only received a single update as well. I guess it's either Samsung or Nexus for my next phone. Samsung so far is the only manufacturer to have shown that they have any interest in updating last years flagships as well as this years (albeit slowly). They had a bad track record before, but since the S3 they seem to have realized that people actually do care about receiving updates. While Moto is looking promising about having a similar change in heart, so far all we have is them updating their current flagships to prove their dedication. It'll take at least a full generation before I actually trust them again.

 

[mowserx]

windnwar[/url]":3vwluwp9]If it involves Verizon, take the time frame of the next slowest carrier process and double it. That has pretty much been my experience. The Moto X being the only exception. If I didn't need the coverage they provide, I'd never buy a phone from them again.

I will never again buy an Android device for use on Verizon - was burned on the Droid Pro. We're on an iPhone5 (Verizon) and an S3 (Sprint) using Ring Plus.

 

[Andara]

Does anyone know where Android is on their plan to move most of the important stuff out of the carrier's and manufacturer's hands entirely?

 

[r3vrse]

Twelve steps for carriers?

Is the first admitting you are the problem?

 

[dlux]

So then how does Apple manage to avoid all this?

(Sounds like too much finger-pointing to me.)

 

[Septimus Prime]

Because of this, for me, it's Nexus or nothing.

Although I hear the Moto X is really good about updates right now.

 

[petriojala]

Any ideas how this actually works for international, unlocked phones?

We have unlocked HTC One's, bought in Finland but no carrier locks, subsidies or any of such. They have always been free to be used with any carrier. Currently one has Optus (Australia) and one has Elisa (Finland) SIM inside.

Does a phone get "locked" to a specific country, market or carrier at some point for updates?

 

[MMcCraryNJ]

dlux[/url]":q011977v]So then how does Apple manage to avoid all this?

(Sounds like too much finger-pointing to me.)

They don't. Since iOS isn't an open source platform, the general public usually doesn't see behind the curtain when it comes to updates. Apple releases the code to carrier partners for testing way before it's made public, and they don't reveal the update to the public until it is ready to go. iOS updates certainly do go through the same amount of carrier testing.

 

[DStaal]

AkeemMcLennon[/url]":bj8lip3w]

Hat Monster[/url]":bj8lip3w]It makes so much more sense to just purchase your device outright and then get a SIM-only plan from a carrier - assuming they offer such a deal. Here in the UK, all four major carriers have pretty much blanket coverage, so that's not even a problem.

Yes, that makes complete sense in the UK. However, in the USA, you're usually better off financially if you choose to buy from the carrier.

Among the carriers mentioned in this article, only one of them (T-mobile) change their pricing based on whether or not you choose to accept the subsidy. If for example, I paid $600 to buy an unlocked phone on Verizon, my monthly plan remains exactly the same as if I had chosen to buy the same phone for $200 with them directly. Sure, I'm locked into a two year contract, but if I was going to remain with them anyway, it's really a moot point.

I'm not saying that the state of carriers in the United States is ideal (it certainly isn't). However, I keep hearing this argument over and over again when it really doesn't even apply to most of the carriers mentioned in this article.

Yes and no: If you are talking about their main plans, yes. But several of the US carriers have prepaid sim plans now, and there are alternatives springing up as well. Which puts them back to being dumb pipes and can change the value back to going it alone, depending on your use and where you live. (For coverage.) I'll save several hundred dollars over the life of my Nexus 4, compared to any of the standard plans.

Again, the big phone companies seem to be fighting it, but their fighting it seems to self-defeating, because they make things worse, not better.

 

[dlux]

DStaal[/url]":1x3xaxpd]Again, the big phone companies seem to be fighting it, but their fighting it seems to self-defeating, because they make things worse, not better.

Have you looked at AT&T's and Verizon's earnings reports lately?

 

[rjc730]

dlux[/url]":1wc8sype]So then how does Apple manage to avoid all this?

(Sounds like too much finger-pointing to me.)

Apple have greater market power. They pitched to the carriers that Apple customers are generally richer and much more likely to spend than the average customer.

For access to the above customers the carriers give Apple quite a large subsidy on their devices, large minimum order quantities, fairly uninhibited control of the App store and updates.

The above logic was fairly reasonable a few years ago, is much more questionable now though. For smartphones the novelty factor and chance for outsized profits is rapidly fading, replaced as for other industries by commoditization. A couple of weeks ago the AT&T CEO came out against subsidies.

For updates the best chance is probably people shifting to outright phones(ie cheaper phones) and the creation of a large amount of malicious software ie viruses for the various outdated operating systems.

At the moment to the carriers the phone updates are nothing but a cost with any great direct benefit to them. Could even argue regular updates of phones delay people replacing their hardware including a new 2 year carrier contract.

 

[Zak]

Septimus Prime[/url]":3rml27ml]Because of this, for me, it's Nexus or nothing.

Although I hear the Moto X is really good about updates right now.

I waited almost a month to get KitKat on my Nexus 7. Sure, better than a year but I got iOS7 on all my devices within hours of release.

 

[sonicmerlin]

A but unrelated, but I've always felt the One X had by far the coolest looking design of any phone I've ever seen. It's a shame they never reused it... And that they seem to have abandoned updates for it.

 

[CannonFodder]

MMcCraryNJ[/url]":jl2r0r9e]

dlux[/url]":jl2r0r9e]So then how does Apple manage to avoid all this?

(Sounds like too much finger-pointing to me.)

They don't. Since iOS isn't an open source platform, the general public usually doesn't see behind the curtain when it comes to updates. Apple releases the code to carrier partners for testing way before it's made public, and they don't reveal the update to the public until it is ready to go. iOS updates certainly do go through the same amount of carrier testing.

Also, Apple does everything: Software, hardware, you name it. They're their own gatekeeper, and they like to play hardball.

Verizon can drag its feet with Apple, and Apple will be glad to take the iPhone off of Verizon if its gets any lip from Verizon. Amazingly enough, iOS updates tend to roll out like clockwork.

I may not like the iPhone, but I have to respect the fact that Apple is smart and tough enough to bring a bazooka to a gunfight with Verizon. Would that Google did.

 

[ajmas]

The whole update nightmare is one reason I tend to recommend people go with a Nexus device, if they want an Android device. The rest of the Android world should really get its act together, since this behaviour will drive people to the iPhone. It makes no sense to pay a premium for a phone and then get shafted on updates. If Apple and the Nexus can get it right why can't anyone else?

BTW i notice that providers who want their apps on the iPhone just put them in the store like any other app. That sounds so much more sane, from a customer's point of view.

 

[ajmas]

petriojala[/url]":8q8hup4i]Any ideas how this actually works for international, unlocked phones?

We have unlocked HTC One's, bought in Finland but no carrier locks, subsidies or any of such. They have always been free to be used with any carrier. Currently one has Optus (Australia) and one has Elisa (Finland) SIM inside.

Does a phone get "locked" to a specific country, market or carrier at some point for updates?

From what i understand Android phones are prelocked when bought via a carrier and it is locked to the carrier, so you can only use their sims, though you are still free to roam. The phone when you buy it also has already been customised with the carrier's software modifications and probably even has their logo on the phone

In the case of an iPhone it is locked to the carrier the moment it is activated as a subsidised phone.

 

[thepropagandist]

daneren2005[/url]":2unvgrpj]

sprockkets[/url]":2unvgrpj]Maybe they should have a picture of a HTC One S and show graphically how after one update HTC doesn't give a shit.

"The anatomy of an HTC update on a non flagship phone: None"

Unfortunately they have shown that they don't care about their flagships either. The HTC One X only received a single update as well. I guess it's either Samsung or Nexus for my next phone. Samsung so far is the only manufacturer to have shown that they have any interest in updating last years flagships as well as this years (albeit slowly). They had a bad track record before, but since the S3 they seem to have realized that people actually do care about receiving updates. While Moto is looking promising about having a similar change in heart, so far all we have is them updating their current flagships to prove their dedication. It'll take at least a full generation before I actually trust them again.

The One X has had 2 updates, it's currently on 4.2.2.

 

[q5ajzvtd]

Is this a surprise? No.

 

[lindenbranch]

AkeemMcLennon[/url]":3qjqx48h]

Hat Monster[/url]":3qjqx48h]It makes so much more sense to just purchase your device outright and then get a SIM-only plan from a carrier - assuming they offer such a deal. Here in the UK, all four major carriers have pretty much blanket coverage, so that's not even a problem.

Yes, that makes complete sense in the UK. However, in the USA, you're usually better off financially if you choose to buy from the carrier.

Among the carriers mentioned in this article, only one of them (T-mobile) change their pricing based on whether or not you choose to accept the subsidy. If for example, I paid $600 to buy an unlocked phone on Verizon, my monthly plan remains exactly the same as if I had chosen to buy the same phone for $200 with them directly. Sure, I'm locked into a two year contract, but if I was going to remain with them anyway, it's really a moot point.

This is not true. Purchasing a phone outright and taking advantage of MVNO pricing will almost always save you money. Even the worst MNO, Verizon, has MVNO and prepaid options that will save you money over their regular post-paid plans.

 

[houkoholic]

ajmas[/url]":lofmosub]The whole update nightmare is one reason I tend to recommend people go with a Nexus device, if they want an Android device. The rest of the Android world should really get its act together, since this behaviour will drive people to the iPhone.

It really doesn't - I think it is a given that most smartphone sales are low cost phones bought by people who couldn't care less about updates because they are either not technically knowledgeable to care or simply use these Android devices as nothing more than a "feature phone plus", that's why the OEMs can get away with it.

It makes no sense to pay a premium for a phone and then get shafted on updates. If Apple and the Nexus can get it right why can't anyone else?

It's as HTC says - carriers. In the US the carriers are the real customers to the OEM, not the end user. As the carriers aren't interested in you keep on using a phone for more than one year and not upgrade they have no desire to make your phone work longer. Apple gets away with it because they are Apple due to their desirability which got out ahead of the game before the carriers could stop it (now if carriers wants to block an update, Apple could probably just give that carrier less stock and hurt them really bad in the bottom line), Nexus does it because Nexus devices are geek phones which aren't mainstream devices, plus it's not like there are a bizillion alternatives (and devices with more profit margin) to Nexus anyway.

Oh and I hate how the US pretty much dictates how he rest of the world gets our updates as well, damn the US carrier wall garden.

It's also interesting how Microsoft came up with their new sneaky method (pretend you are a dev lolz!) of updating their WP which if you look closely is pretty much designed to address these carrier road blocks.

 

[TheWerewolf]

Here's a thought - stop letting carriers modify your phone's OS. If all the major manufacturers did this - the problem would be solved. It would be carrier's job to install things on the phone rather than crippling the phone in a way that makes it hard to upgrade.

Or, sell your phones directly to the end user as well as to the carriers. A growing percentage of the phone buying public is willing to pay to have a 'clean' phone that gets regular updates quickly.

 

[petriojala]

ajmas[/url]":38e9iohm]

From what i understand Android phones are prelocked when bought via a carrier and it is locked to the carrier, so you can only use their sims, though you are still free to roam. The phone when you buy it also has already been customised with the carrier's software modifications and probably even has their logo on the phone

In the case of an iPhone it is locked to the carrier the moment it is activated as a subsidised phone.

That may be the case in the US for most phones, but not everywhere.

I purchased these HTC One's from the carrier because they had them on stock. They were unlocked and in no way connected to the carrier, I was free to put another carrier's SIM inside. That's also the reason why they cost over 600€ a piece, aka the real, unsubvented price.

They also don't have any carrier modifications, no logos, no add-on software.

That's how the mobile market works in Finland - I've never purchased a carrier locked phone. If you want to pay for your phone every month, you can pay it with monthly installments but that's unrelated to your mobile subscription. None of my iPhones have been locked to a carrier either.

Just curious how e.g. HTC's Android update schedule works with these carrier independent phones..

 

[Eurynom0s]

MMcCraryNJ[/url]":13v84zoq]

windnwar[/url]":13v84zoq]If it involves Verizon, take the time frame of the next slowest carrier process and double it. That has pretty much been my experience. The Moto X being the only exception. If I didn't need the coverage they provide, I'd never buy a phone from them again.

If AT&T isn't great in your area just yet, I'd keep my eye peeled over the coming months. I'm a former Verizon customer that switched over to them last week, and my LTE speeds and voice coverage are much better. It's my belief that they are quickly catching up to Verizon in terms of coverage area, and already have them beat on data speeds.

To what extent could your better data speeds be due to less people being on AT&T in your area? I recall Verizon LTE speeds being insanely fast when it was brand new and nobody had LTE phones yet.

CannonFodder[/url]":13v84zoq]

MMcCraryNJ[/url]":13v84zoq]

dlux[/url]":13v84zoq]So then how does Apple manage to avoid all this?

(Sounds like too much finger-pointing to me.)

They don't. Since iOS isn't an open source platform, the general public usually doesn't see behind the curtain when it comes to updates. Apple releases the code to carrier partners for testing way before it's made public, and they don't reveal the update to the public until it is ready to go. iOS updates certainly do go through the same amount of carrier testing.

Also, Apple does everything: Software, hardware, you name it. They're their own gatekeeper, and they like to play hardball.

Verizon can drag its feet with Apple, and Apple will be glad to take the iPhone off of Verizon if its gets any lip from Verizon. Amazingly enough, iOS updates tend to roll out like clockwork.

I may not like the iPhone, but I have to respect the fact that Apple is smart and tough enough to bring a bazooka to a gunfight with Verizon. Would that Google did.

Same, I don't like the small screen size, and a lot about iOS drives me nuts (not so much on an iPad though, probably due to my usage of an iPad being different enough), but Apple unequivocally did better than Google in this regard. As I'm sure most Ars readers are already aware, Apple actually originally wanted to debut the phone on Verizon, but Verizon was demanding way too much control over the phone, so Apple told Verizon to get bent and went to AT&T.

 

[mostlylurking]

The HTC site is not accurate. I have one x, which updated itself to 4.2.2 and sense 5.0 in October. I am in South Africa. The service providers stopped network locking several years ago.

 

[PrimalxConvoy]

AkeemMcLennon[/url]":waw1padd]

Hat Monster[/url]":waw1padd]It makes so much more sense to just purchase your device outright and then get a SIM-only plan from a carrier - assuming they offer such a deal. Here in the UK, all four major carriers have pretty much blanket coverage, so that's not even a problem.

Yes, that makes complete sense in the UK. However, in the USA, you're usually better off financially if you choose to buy from the carrier.

Among the carriers mentioned in this article, only one of them (T-mobile) change their pricing based on whether or not you choose to accept the subsidy. If for example, I paid $600 to buy an unlocked phone on Verizon, my monthly plan remains exactly the same as if I had chosen to buy the same phone for $200 with them directly. Sure, I'm locked into a two year contract, but if I was going to remain with them anyway, it's really a moot point.

I'm not saying that the state of carriers in the United States is ideal (it certainly isn't). However, I keep hearing this argument over and over again when it really doesn't even apply to most of the carriers mentioned in this article.

In Japan, too, there are less options for unlocked phones. You can get an already (carrier subsidised) phone unlocked only by one carrier (Docomo ) for their own handsets. Also, none of the major carriers offer consumer friendly smartphone sim only deals for unlocked phones. Third party sims are available but only for phones that have the required "Japan safe" stickers and other red tape attached to them.

Basically, they have "protected" themselves from "nasty" foreign phones and any form of competition, which continues to make them less and less competitive globally.

 

[tului]

PrimalxConvoy[/url]":2v14magd]

AkeemMcLennon[/url]":2v14magd]

Hat Monster[/url]":2v14magd]It makes so much more sense to just purchase your device outright and then get a SIM-only plan from a carrier - assuming they offer such a deal. Here in the UK, all four major carriers have pretty much blanket coverage, so that's not even a problem.

Yes, that makes complete sense in the UK. However, in the USA, you're usually better off financially if you choose to buy from the carrier.

Among the carriers mentioned in this article, only one of them (T-mobile) change their pricing based on whether or not you choose to accept the subsidy. If for example, I paid $600 to buy an unlocked phone on Verizon, my monthly plan remains exactly the same as if I had chosen to buy the same phone for $200 with them directly. Sure, I'm locked into a two year contract, but if I was going to remain with them anyway, it's really a moot point.

I'm not saying that the state of carriers in the United States is ideal (it certainly isn't). However, I keep hearing this argument over and over again when it really doesn't even apply to most of the carriers mentioned in this article.

In Japan, too, there are less options for unlocked phones. You can get an already (carrier subsidised) phone unlocked only by one carrier (Docomo ) for their own handsets. Also, none of the major carriers offer consumer friendly smartphone sim only deals for unlocked phones. Third party sims are available but only for phones that have the required "Japan safe" stickers and other red tape attached to them.

Basically, they have "protected" themselves from "nasty" foreign phones and any form of competition, which continues to make them less and less competitive globally.

Sounds like Japan's carriers are even more in bed with the government than the US carriers are. Ideally the US gov would step in and legislate mandatory support(and prompt, 1-2 month delay on Android updates) for 2-3 years. It's really a safety and security issue. With people doing banking and sharing way more details via a phone, they are prime targets for malware.

 

[mowserx]

lindenbranch[/url]":257r45or]

AkeemMcLennon[/url]":257r45or]

Hat Monster[/url]":257r45or]It makes so much more sense to just purchase your device outright and then get a SIM-only plan from a carrier - assuming they offer such a deal. Here in the UK, all four major carriers have pretty much blanket coverage, so that's not even a problem.

Yes, that makes complete sense in the UK. However, in the USA, you're usually better off financially if you choose to buy from the carrier.

Among the carriers mentioned in this article, only one of them (T-mobile) change their pricing based on whether or not you choose to accept the subsidy. If for example, I paid $600 to buy an unlocked phone on Verizon, my monthly plan remains exactly the same as if I had chosen to buy the same phone for $200 with them directly. Sure, I'm locked into a two year contract, but if I was going to remain with them anyway, it's really a moot point.

This is not true. Purchasing a phone outright and taking advantage of MVNO pricing will almost always save you money. Even the worst MNO, Verizon, has MVNO and prepaid options that will save you money over their regular post-paid plans.

This is mostly true. At this time, the only MVNOs which offer 4G LTE are those which use Sprint's network, which is why we chose Ring Plus over an MVNO which resells AT&T or Verizon (3G or 3.5G only). Of course, Sprint has yet to introduce 4G LTE in our area but they are getting there.

We are saving a ton of money by going Ring Plus (on the $9.99/month plan: 400 minutes talk $.02 every minute after, 400 text messages $0.02 each text after, 300 meg data $0.02 each meg after). We had to go with 3rd choice of carrier but the savings and eventually 4G LTE were enough to convince us.

 

[pmhparis]

rjc730[/url]":3tjg0fb8]

dlux[/url]":3tjg0fb8]So then how does Apple manage to avoid all this?

(Sounds like too much finger-pointing to me.)

Apple have greater market power. They pitched to the carriers that Apple customers are generally richer and much more likely to spend than the average customer.

It wasn't Apple "Pitching", it's the fact that iOS devices have consistently, year over year, been the devices of those who buy more Apps, browse the most and through this become the favoured customers for operators.

It's not Apple's fault that Android devices are bought by the penny pinching. It's Not Apple's fault either that the Android market is so fragmented through Google/Operators/Manufacturer forcing Android device buyers to do a 12 step dance for upgrades or that HTC in particular brings out many devices & then abandons them.

If you prefer Android, good for you but quit blaming your platform's deficiencies on Apple.