Sony smartphones won't get Jelly Bean until next year

We may see Key Lime Pie before Sony gets even a taste of Jelly Bean.

Read the whole story

 

[JPan]

Honestly? All the whining is slightly overdone. I have a ICS phone and a JB tablet and the difference is minimal.

Yeah its nice to have the newest release but its not the same as for people who actually have to suffer 2.3.

As long as Android was evolving so rapidly it was really important to get the update right away, but now that Android is nice, smooth and pretty its not the same pain point anymore. the Apps are updated anyway.

 

[gsfprez]

I'm not really sure how this qualifies as news.

Isn't it common knowledge that one buys an Android phone understanding that there is little chance it will be upgraded through official vendor/carrier channels, and that the most likely method of upgrading requires some form of rooting? Isn't it also common knowledge that for many years, Android devices have a baseline OS version of 2.3, and that this will continue to be the baseline OS version for many more years?

I can understand being upset by this in 2010.. but being upset by this in late 2012 seems comically illogical.

Android phones don't get software updates, and the Pope is Catholic.

For Normal android users - ie, those not in forums liks this one - i don't even see how this is a problem.

 

[paul4ra]

Google really needs to fix this. I would think through standards and modularization.

Agree totally, IMO Google are not making the lives of the phone manufacturers easy, and now that Android is maturing they need to make some changes to their development processes.

Just buy a Nexus, and if the rumors are true you will have plenty of options.

I believe the Nexus devices to be at the core of the problem, not the solution. Google likes to use the "open" word to market Android, but are hypocrites as by creating Nexus devices Google creates a hierarchy of devices, giving preference to the ones where money goes directly to Google's pocket.

As far as I see it there are two alternative solutions:

1. Google to make Android a truly open platform and develop it entirely in the open like Mozilla develops Firefox. Then every manufacturer has an equal chance to prove their competency.

2. Google to make fewer releases of the core OS, but provide minor and security updates to all devices over the air (i.e. a model identical to that used by desktop Microsoft Windows). It is an absolute nightmare for the phone manufacturers to have to replace the core OS so frequently and go through the entire testing protocol as at present.

I believe option two to be the most practical and realistic given that Android is now becoming a mature platform. Android Gingerbread already destroys iOS6 in terms of functionality, so I doubt people will be missing much if there is a new core OS every two or three years.

 

[Wheaty73]

Which is why you don't buy carrier-locked/specific phones if you want to get updates.

It is worse than this actually. I have a non-carrier locked Xperia Mini Pro, which was purchased direct from Sony UK that still hasn't seen an update to 4.0 - other batch numbers in its model have had them, including ones locked to carriers, just not my unlocked phone.

I have a Nokia N97 mini that is similarly purchased unlocked from Nokia UK and hasn't received an update to Symbian yet either.

I think the take-home message I am getting is "Don't buy anything that isn't an iPhone or a Nexus if you want updates". Or don't buy British.

 

[paul4ra]

Which is why you don't buy carrier-locked/specific phones if you want to get updates.

It is worse than this actually. I have a non-carrier locked Xperia Mini Pro, which was purchased direct from Sony UK that still hasn't seen an update to 4.0 - other batch numbers in its model have had them, including ones locked to carriers, just not my unlocked phone.

I have a Nokia N97 mini that is similarly purchased unlocked from Nokia UK and hasn't received an update to Symbian yet either.

I think the take-home message I am getting is "Don't buy anything that isn't an iPhone or a Nexus if you want updates". Or don't buy British.

O2-UK have blocked the ICS update for all UK users of all 2011 Xperias (no matter what network you are on, nor whether the device is SIM-free or not -- they can do this because the networks still have to support all devices). Don't keep waiting -- just download a .ftf of the official Sony firmware and flash it with Flashtool.

 

[mullingitover]

Google really needs to fix this. I would think through standards and modularization.

True. But how much of this is up to Google?

100% of it, imho. Google allows OEMs to put Google's branding on their devices, and they have the ability to specify the terms for this relationship. They don't specify a service level for upgrade deployments, and they don't specify a requirement to allow users to return the device to a stock Android OS. I had a Galaxy phone and it was a terrible device both in terms of hardware and software. While I don't hold Google at fault for Samsung's crappy compass or battery life, I do blame them 100% for the fact that I never got the OS upgrades.

 

[Einlanzerous]

Sony- you don't seem to be doing that stellar with Android. Leave it and make me some sweet awesome phones running WP8.

 

[fferitt25]

And this is one reasons why I don't like Android's eco-system.

 

[tfbundy]

Well, at least they didn't try to solve the problem the Motorola/Google way; by cancelling the update for most phones. Atrix, Photon etc owners with dual core 1GB RAM phones got a year of false promises and delays before being told "no soup for you!" Leading by example, eh Google.. apparently gingerbread is good enough for us Motorola peasants.

 

[truant]

I don't get all the fuss about versions. I don't know, or care, what version of Android my phone is running. It works. That's all I need it to do. Takes photos, makes and receives calls, email, web, etc. While I don't doubt it happens sometimes, I have never not been able to install an app because of version problems.

If I did care about what type of dessert my phone was, I wouldn't whinge about it on web forums, I'd just install a ROM and be done with it. It's not rocket science.

 

[Leather Rope]

Google really needs to fix this. I would think through standards and modularization.

Android is forever fragmented. Google would have to start all over to fix it which it won't.

 

[aardarf]

Well I guess...

that Pie...
is the Key...

*glasses*

to making Sony Jelly
yeeeaaaaahhhhh???

 

[Pjotr]

And they promised early 2011 to be quick in upgrading from then on, they had understood the market. Not so, another brand bites the dust.

 

[mrsilver]

O2-UK have blocked the ICS update for all UK users of all 2011 Xperias (no matter what network you are on, nor whether the device is SIM-free or not -- they can do this because the networks still have to support all devices)..

Sorry but this makes no sense. O2 cannot block people who have the Xperia on other UK networks from upgrading their phone. In addition O2 cannot block people who have bought the Xperia directly from Sony getting an update.

Finally I don't really understand what you mean by "networks still having to support all devices" as that also makes no sense. I can use whatever phone I want on O2 and they are under no obligation to support it.

 

[shawnce]

I don't get all the fuss about versions. I don't know, or care, what version of Android my phone is running. It works. That's all I need it to do.

Try developing for the Android platform...

 

[tfbundy]

I don't get all the fuss about versions. I don't know, or care, what version of Android my phone is running. It works. That's all I need it to do. Takes photos, makes and receives calls, email, web, etc. While I don't doubt it happens sometimes, I have never not been able to install an app because of version problems.

If I did care about what type of dessert my phone was, I wouldn't whinge about it on web forums, I'd just install a ROM and be done with it. It's not rocket science.

Lol, Google's app store hides apps that are not compatible with your os version. The reason you " have never not been able to install an app because of version problems.." is because you don't see the apps you can't have. Imagine how many more complaints Google would get if users realised what they are missing out on.

By sticking to an old os version, you also miss out on security patches, I'm guessing you will complain when your cc details go awol.

 

[squeeb]

It should be pretty clear to people these days. Buy a freakin' Nexus or learn to root/rom your phone. I just got pushed the 4.1.2 update on my GSM Nexus the other day...what a great feeling it is to know I'll be getting these kinda updates even a year from now.

 

[truant]

I don't get all the fuss about versions. I don't know, or care, what version of Android my phone is running. It works. That's all I need it to do. Takes photos, makes and receives calls, email, web, etc. While I don't doubt it happens sometimes, I have never not been able to install an app because of version problems.

If I did care about what type of dessert my phone was, I wouldn't whinge about it on web forums, I'd just install a ROM and be done with it. It's not rocket science.

Lol, Google's app store hides apps that are not compatible with your os version. The reason you " have never not been able to install an app because of version problems.." is because you don't see the apps you can't have. Imagine how many more complaints Google would get if users realised what they are missing out on.

By sticking to an old os version, you also miss out on security patches, I'm guessing you will complain when your cc details go awol.

I don't use the play store on my phone, I use it on my laptop. I see all the apps. When I hit install the marketplace says "This app is compatible with your device" (of which I have two listed) and I hit OK. I did actually once get one which wasn't, but it turned out I'd tried to install the tablet-sized version of Swiftkey not the phone one, it wasn't a version issue in the sense I was talking about.

Also, I'm not stupid enough to leave my cc details on my phone. Or, for that matter, install dodgy apps which could slurp them. Security is as much a user problem as a software one.

 

[paul4ra]

O2-UK have blocked the ICS update for all UK users of all 2011 Xperias (no matter what network you are on, nor whether the device is SIM-free or not -- they can do this because the networks still have to support all devices)..

Sorry but this makes no sense. O2 cannot block people who have the Xperia on other UK networks from upgrading their phone. In addition O2 cannot block people who have bought the Xperia directly from Sony getting an update.

Finally I don't really understand what you mean by "networks still having to support all devices" as that also makes no sense. I can use whatever phone I want on O2 and they are under no obligation to support it.

It's quite unbelievable, but yes they can. Part of the reason why updates take so long for phone manufacturers is that for any firmware to be released on any phone it must first go through a strict and tedious approval process by each network operator in the country of desired release. Due to roaming capabilities, all it takes is for one network operator to disapprove and the firmware will be blocked for the whole country (and on all operators).

The reason being is because many people will call their network operator if they are having problems with their phone, and not the phone manufacturer itself. Dumb users mean that the network operators have no choice but to provide support for those who use their network, even if they didn't buy the phone through the network operator directly.

 

[VideoGameTech]

Manufacturers make too many damn Android phone models.
Then they screw with the OS to "differentiate" themselves.
On top of that, the carriers screw with the OS more, to add their crapware in a way you can't delete it.
Both deserve plenty of blame for it.

Google is in no position to control this herd of cats, as much as we might like them to.

As for the Xperia Play, given all the customizations Android got to make it PSP-compatible, no wonder it isn't getting updated.

Conclusion: base your Android purchase on the food flavor it has in the box. You can't count on any upgrades.

 

[goglen]

I don't get all the fuss about versions. I don't know, or care, what version of Android my phone is running. It works. That's all I need it to do. Takes photos, makes and receives calls, email, web, etc. While I don't doubt it happens sometimes, I have never not been able to install an app because of version problems.

Thank you. This is my wife (preschool teacher, Masters degree). She has a 1.5 year old Droid Charge (Verizon, LTE). It's still running Samsung skinned Android 2.3 (Gingerbread).

I have the Galaxy Nexus, and wished she would be upgraded - even researched CyanogenMod - but no radio drivers for hers. She was glad - she said "why? It does what I need, I don't care, and I don't want you to screw it up!"

I bought her a Nexus 7 (reading in bed, she has a Kindle 3). I pointed out the different Android versions and asked "wouldn't you rather they be the same?"

She said "no, it doesn't matter. Both do what I want, they don't seem any different except the colors".


I think I dropped my Geek Card and haven't been able to find it since.

 

[MechR]

Here's hoping that Android dev's experiment with promoting the Xperia S to pseudo-Nexus bears fruit.

 

[happymellon]

Google really needs to fix this. I would think through standards and modularization.

But they don't. Android's increasing global market share has proven that mass market consumers simply don't care. Commenters on tech sites do, but we're a vocal minority. Most people expect the phone to run as it did the day they bought it, and some may not even welcome updates.

Personally, I'll never buy a non-Nexus again.

Not true. The market does care, the issue is that manufacturers lie to us to sell their wares.

Take a look at Apple and the hype people get over upgrading their version of iOS. Average people do see when new versions of Windows come out and they have to get it. People do care if their phones are running old stuff.

Then take companies like LG who promise ICS to a group of phones when then go silent on the subject. Still waiting on my Optimus Black, that was originally promised to be released earlier in the year, then told later that actually it wasn't going to be upgrading. Then back on, and now "it will come in due time". What the hell does that mean?

By them misleading customers in to what to expect, they get a sale today, which shows increased share. But take a look at their various Facebook pages, and you'll see a lot of people who are not happy with the double talk. If the next Nexus is an LG one, I'm not touching it.

 

[mrsilver]

It's quite unbelievable, but yes they can.

I'm sorry but the reason you think it's unbelievable is because you're quite a bit wrong in places. I've worked for 2 UK network operators directly with their device accreditation teams so, if you don't mind, I can tell you exactly how it works

Part of the reason why updates take so long for phone manufacturers is that for any firmware to be released on any phone it must first go through a strict and tedious approval process by each network operator in the country of desired release.

Close but not quite. Each handset that comes from a manufacturer will come with, amongst other things, an identifier which is unique to that operator. This identifier allows each network operator to allow or block an update to their devices. The accreditation they do typically takes 3 weeks and, from what I can remember, not one OEM has passed first time (often failing on embarrassingly trivial things) which means they need to bug fix and then re-submit. Once a network operator approves the update, it can be deployed to only those handsets that have their unique operator code. This means that Vodafone can reject a software update but O2 can accept it and different people have different versions.

The reason that this becomes a convoluted project is that phone manufacturers typically drop the phone into the network operators at the same time and then consolidate all the defects reported from them into the next release. Some operators will take that release, some will want another one. This is why updates come out later on phone operators than others.

Due to roaming capabilities, all it takes is for one network operator to disapprove and the firmware will be blocked for the whole country (and on all operators).

This depends completely on the policy of the phone manufacturer and has nothing to do with roaming. Network operators have frequently rejected software updates only to take a later version and it has absolutely no bearing on the handsets rolled out to their competitors nor the open market variant. To this day, if you find four people with the same handset on four different networks, then the chances are quite good that there will be a couple of different firmware versions. This is because some networks have more strict rules on their accreditation process than others.

If Sony has made the decision not to support all UK users based on the decision with O2, then that is Sony's decision and has nothing to do with O2. There is no reason why they cannot launch it to their stock handsets or with the other operators.

However what you sometimes find is that if an operator rejects an update in such a high profile way, then the other operators will inquire to find out why and may often withdraw their approval post accreditation. No testing will catch all the bugs after all.

Regarding roaming, network operators have long accepted that they cannot stop handsets they haven't accredited from connecting to the network (direct purchases and roaming being two examples) which is why they don't block them. If a specific handset starts causing harm to the network then they have capabilities to block it but I have no idea if they've ever used it.

The reason being is because many people will call their network operator if they are having problems with their phone, and not the phone manufacturer itself. Dumb users mean that the network operators have no choice but to provide support for those who use their network, even if they didn't buy the phone through the network operator directly.

Sort of. Firstly bear in mind that if you do call your phone manufacturer you'll be told directly to call your network operator. This is a screwed up situation which has long benefited the phone manufacturers over the operators and, naturally, they are keen for it not to change. The operators would love to hand it back to the phone manufacturers but it wouldn't go down well with customers.

Network operators will provide support for all handsets they range but it's impossible task to support absolutely every single phone. Thankfully the call center scripts they have can support about 80% of the problems as they are generic for most operating systems. So in short, they'll have a good go, but if you're running some obscure ZTE handset than no-one knows about, they'll only be able to help you so far.

I hope that clears things up a little. The TL;DR version is that testing and accreditation of handsets is done by each operators and their decision to release generally has no bearing on the retail firmware or firmware for other operators. Each operator can be running slightly different versions of firmware and that the decision to withhold a release for an entire country if only one operator rejected the update would be down to the phone manufacturer not the operators.

(of course, things are different for the iPhone)

 

[Hurda]

I don't get all the fuss about versions. I don't know, or care, what version of Android my phone is running. It works. That's all I need it to do. Takes photos, makes and receives calls, email, web, etc. While I don't doubt it happens sometimes, I have never not been able to install an app because of version problems.

If I did care about what type of dessert my phone was, I wouldn't whinge about it on web forums, I'd just install a ROM and be done with it. It's not rocket science.

Then, with all due respect, you probably made the wrong decision with a fully-fledged smartphone and, as I can see, you consider your Android device to be merely a phone with additional features, not as a computer with phone-functions.
Are you equally indifferent towards updating and/or upgrading your desktop-OS?

I'm sure you never had problems with app-incompatibility as pretty much every app on the Google-store is still made to be compatible to 2.2 or 2.3 because of the lack of OS-updates for most devices (75% are still not on 4.x, which was released almost a year ago). So all the nifty new features and APIs and whatnot of later versions are released for nothing, unless Google also backports some of those for app-devs to add those features for ancient OS-versions.

Also, if you want to know why people are upgrading their mobile OS, just check the bugfix-list of iOS 6 with its approx. 190 items, with most being critical. I'm sure the OS-upgrades for Androids are fixing about the same amount with every other new version.

 

[jonnyth]

The presumed finger-pointing between Google, the device makers, and the carriers seems to run in a circle. Although not everyone is using an index finger.

I have got to remember not to drink coffee while reading comments...

 

[LosD]

- but outside of the US, those customisations amount to three or four tabs in an excel spreadsheet, some wallpapers and startup images and some APK's for pre-loading. God knows, I've filled in enough of them in my time.

That is just around three or four excel tabs, some wallpapers and startup images and some APK's for pre-loading TOO MUCH.

Carriers should keep their slimy hands completely off the handsets, do what they are supposed to, and not a single thing more. If I wanted any of their useless crap, I'd install myself.

 

[Marlor_AU]

Until carriers get out of the way and stop putting their own makeup on the OS, we'll never see reasonable upgrade availability.

I don't think it's all down to the carriers. They seem to get all the blame, but they're only part of the problem.

Here in Australia, carriers do very little branding. In many cases, customers buy their phones outright and just get the SIM cards from the carriers. The update situation is no different to that in the US. Updates are problematic for Android.

My sister has a Samsung Galaxy Ace. It's a current phone still sold by the carriers, and she is running vanilla firmware, updated straight from Samsung's Kies software.

Supported updates top out at 2.3.6. It is a phone that is being actively sold right now, but can't be updated past Gingerbread, which was released in 2010.

It doesn't seem to be a hardware limitation. According to reports, Android 4.1.1 is installable and runs fine using CyanogenMod. However, there is no way I'm putting that on there for her - I'd prefer not to become responsible for the tech support calls.

I have no idea why Samsung don't just test and release 4.1.1 for one of their phones that is presently in the marketplace. However, since they refuse to do it even for phones sold outright with vanilla firmware, I can't see how it's the carriers' fault.

 

[paul4ra]

Not quite. The problem is that OEMs do such a heavy customisation on Android that they have a significant amount of work to do to update to the new version of Android and then layer on top all their modifications. All of this work is perceived as a money sink because they cannot get anyone to pay for it - even though they try it with the carriers all the time.

A bigger problem is Google's Nexus model -- apart from being against the open and fair spirit of the AOSP whereby everyone should be on a level playing field, Google make the AOSP releases extremely specific to whatever SoC architecture is in the Nexus phones, leaving a lot of work to be done to get things working at the low-level by the phone manufacturer.

In contrast to the absolutely useless junk added by the network operators, I also actually regard the customisations made by phone manufacturers as a positive degree of internal competition an innovation that otherwise would not be present. The nature of the AOSP means that the improvements made by phone and SoC manufacturers can eventually be baked back into the official AOSP trunk (in fact, it is surprising how little of the AOSP code comes directly from Google). For example, some of the features in ICS were features that Sony/HTC/Samsung had already implemented in their Gingerbread implementations. It also allows for personal tastes and choice e.g. Others will disagree, but personally I much prefer the look and logical layout of the Sony skin to stock AOSP. I have this choice, and others will not agree but have other choices available to them. The modularity of Android means that launchers can be easily changed, and most manufacturers like Sony already offer unlocked bootloaders and (mostly) open drivers so that the update thing really does not become such a big issue.

 

[mrsilver]

That is just around three or four excel tabs, some wallpapers and startup images and some APK's for pre-loading TOO MUCH.

Carriers should keep their slimy hands completely off the handsets, do what they are supposed to, and not a single thing more. If I wanted any of their useless crap, I'd install myself.

To be fair, some of the customisation things are required for the phone to operate at its best on the network. Different networks have different hardware and different network configurations but, yes, a lot of it just isn't needed and - in Europe at least - these customisations are getting fewer and fewer.

Last time I looked at an operator branded phone it had a splash screen, two additional bookmarks and a default home page on the browser. All pretty benign and easy to remove/change. Of course, that was in Europe.

Mind you, prior to the iPhone, a large number of OEMs required significant amounts of handholding in order to get a phone launched. Thankfully the rise of iPhone and Android has meant that they aren't quite so clueless these days - but you'd be amazed at the crappy (supposedly final) software builds I used to receive from OEMs who you'd assume would know better.

One example couldn't even dial 999 correctly - which is the UKs emergency services and quite an important number to get right!

 

[Jilkon]

I'm still running Gingerbread. Not bothering putting ICS on this android, I don't think it could take it. That said, it would be nice if they would come to some kind of leveling on when and how they do these releases across the entire platform, but I guess to some degree that would throw a monkey wrench in the works that is android. I mean after all, if it was set up like Apple, it might as well become same. ::shudder::

On a different note, why the hell are they using this food based names to move through the progression of the OS's? More rhetorical than anything else but I hate having to say something to the tune of "I have Ice Cream Sandwich as my current android OS", it just has a dopey feel to it, kinda like watching adults play with duplo bricks. Eh, maybe I'm a curmudgeon and don't realize it yet. Give me a numbered release any day over dopey names.

They're probably using dessert names to have an ample supply of names for future versions. Wouldn't want to run into "The OS X Problem", now would they.