Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why U.S. Galaxy S Phones run Android 2.1

forum.xda-developers.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 101 posts

Re: Why U.S. Galaxy S Phones run Android 2.1

#41

Post by colomon »

qjz wrote: post #32
ergo98 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just as one aside on this, it's pretty clear by now that it isn't simply a matter of doing a source control get and the vendor's work is done. Aside from simply having technical insight into the individual ROMs, you needn't look further than the disaster that has been Sony Erricson and Dell's Android entrants to see the truth in this -- those vendors came out with devices running dated Android versions, turning possi…

I got an X10 for free with upgrade over the holidays and love it. It makes me wonder if all the talk about version upgrades is mere noise. I'm relieved not to be affected by the Android SMS bug in Froyo, so will happily wait until it is fixed. Even if my phone ever sees an upgrade to Eclair, I probably won't notice with AT&T's customizations, which I like quite a bit. It's funny to hear the X10 described as a loser w…

Wait, didn't everyone like XP more than Vista? I know I used Windows from version 3.1 right up until my experiences with Vista convinced me that spending an extra $1000 to get a MacBook Pro instead of a Vista laptop was completely worth it...

Re: Why U.S. Galaxy S Phones run Android 2.1

#42

Post by rufugee »

yock wrote: post #18
w1ntermute wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm as frustrated as the next guy that my Captivate is still running Eclair, but stuff like this doesn't really get us any closer to a solution. Maybe you already know, but you can get an unofficial Froyo rom from xda-developers. And before people jump on me about how it won't work for their mom or next-door neighbor - this is just a tip for fellow HNers, in case they didn't know already.

Everything I've read is that the UX on the custom roms isn't exactly breathtaking. Am I mistaken?

I actually find Touchwiz to be a few steps above the default Android experience. The colors are nice...the icons are beautiful. My vanilla Droid 2 running Froyo looks dull comparison.

Re: Why U.S. Galaxy S Phones run Android 2.1

#43

Post by brettnak »

yock wrote: post #18
w1ntermute wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm as frustrated as the next guy that my Captivate is still running Eclair, but stuff like this doesn't really get us any closer to a solution. Maybe you already know, but you can get an unofficial Froyo rom from xda-developers. And before people jump on me about how it won't work for their mom or next-door neighbor - this is just a tip for fellow HNers, in case they didn't know already.

Everything I've read is that the UX on the custom roms isn't exactly breathtaking. Am I mistaken?

I have the Fission ROM for the Droid X and it looks completely stock. You can get certain parts from Gingerbread, such as the status bar and Launcher ( the Launcher app is basically the home screen ), or you can stick with the stock ones from Froyo.

Re: Why U.S. Galaxy S Phones run Android 2.1

#44

Post by evilduck »

ergo98 wrote: post #21
ergo98 wrote: post #13

The conflicting interests issue is really a problem in the Android space. As has been shown time and time again, vendors really don't want the burden of keeping your handset up to date forever because there is nothing in it for them, aside from perhaps avoiding too much negative press. Naturally people are going to compare it to iOS, where updates are free and rapidly disseminated. The difference there is that there…

Just as one aside on this, it's pretty clear by now that it isn't simply a matter of doing a source control get and the vendor's work is done. Aside from simply having technical insight into the individual ROMs, you needn't look further than the disaster that has been Sony Erricson and Dell's Android entrants to see the truth in this -- those vendors came out with devices running dated Android versions, turning possi…

I wouldn't be surprised if the in-house development costs rivaled or exceeded what something like Windows Mobile cost to license.

That implies that Windows Mobile doesn't require similar in-house effort, on top of the OEM license fees. Windows phones still require the same hardware driver development effort, and WM7 is already starting to receive the carrier-bastardization treatment. I'd say Android's licensing being free is the only difference.

Re: Why U.S. Galaxy S Phones run Android 2.1

#45

Post by ergo98 »

evilduck wrote: post #44
ergo98 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just as one aside on this, it's pretty clear by now that it isn't simply a matter of doing a source control get and the vendor's work is done. Aside from simply having technical insight into the individual ROMs, you needn't look further than the disaster that has been Sony Erricson and Dell's Android entrants to see the truth in this -- those vendors came out with devices running dated Android versions, turning possi…

I wouldn't be surprised if the in-house development costs rivaled or exceeded what something like Windows Mobile cost to license. That implies that Windows Mobile doesn't require similar in-house effort, on top of the OEM license fees. Windows phones still require the same hardware driver development effort, and WM7 is already starting to receive the carrier-bastardization treatment. I'd say Android's licensing being…

I have no idea how the Windows Phone 7 dev kit works, however with CE it literally was configuring some flags and resources, and that was it.

Microsoft did a tonne of heavy lifting to make it so. There were boxed in drivers for virtually everything, and customization was absolutely minimal.

And when you bought a MotoQ, it was stock CE.

Re: Why U.S. Galaxy S Phones run Android 2.1

#47

Post by drivebyacct2 »

ergo98 wrote: post #13

The conflicting interests issue is really a problem in the Android space. As has been shown time and time again, vendors really don't want the burden of keeping your handset up to date forever because there is nothing in it for them, aside from perhaps avoiding too much negative press. Naturally people are going to compare it to iOS, where updates are free and rapidly disseminated. The difference there is that there…

> As has been shown time and time again, vendors really don't want the burden of keeping your handset up to date forever because there is nothing in it for them, aside from perhaps avoiding too much negative press.

Then stop locking the bootloader and let me put the latest version of CM on my phone. I'm not going to buy Motorola and I'm not going to buy Samsung. Samsung won't release their kernel modifications for Froyo which are needed by the CM team to get CM7 running on the Galaxy S devices... Motorola is keeping the bootloader (and thus kernel) on their phones restricted. They're also not even close to timely on their updates. My D1 is running Gingerbread fairly stably, especially considering it's ONE maintainer disappeared two weeks ago due to personal financial concerns. OTOH, only one device is running GB from the manufacturer/carrier and that is Google's own phone.

Let me use my damn phone, I'll take care of the updates. I don't know how much simpler we can make installing CM7 and I know there are some/many/random-number people who have gone CM just to get the latest Android version.

Re: Why U.S. Galaxy S Phones run Android 2.1

#48

Post by diego »

ecaroth wrote: post #9
yock wrote: post #4

This might be plausible, but it can't possibly be confirmed which makes it no better than speculation. I'm as frustrated as the next guy that my Captivate is still running Eclair, but stuff like this doesn't really get us any closer to a solution. When both carrier and manufacturer neglect to offer explanation or consideration for their collective failure to deliver, they must collectively be held responsible. This m…

Agreed - but a little transparency on the public front for both Samsung and AT&T would go a long way. I have been on the fence about installing a hacked 2.2 rom on my captivate, but never did because I just had a feeling that the update was coming 'next week'. That was 4 months ago.

Do it. My Galaxy S with 2.2 is so much better than with 2.1 that it seems like a different phone. It's faster, more stable, the battery lasts longer. I wish I'd done it sooner.

Re: Why U.S. Galaxy S Phones run Android 2.1

#49

Post by catlike »

yock wrote: post #4

This might be plausible, but it can't possibly be confirmed which makes it no better than speculation. I'm as frustrated as the next guy that my Captivate is still running Eclair, but stuff like this doesn't really get us any closer to a solution. When both carrier and manufacturer neglect to offer explanation or consideration for their collective failure to deliver, they must collectively be held responsible. This m…

> When both carrier and manufacturer neglect to offer explanation or consideration for their collective failure to deliver, they must collectively be held responsible.

No, you can only hold the organization that you have a business relationship with responsible.

Re: Why U.S. Galaxy S Phones run Android 2.1

#50

Post by lwhi »

ergo98 wrote: post #13

The conflicting interests issue is really a problem in the Android space. As has been shown time and time again, vendors really don't want the burden of keeping your handset up to date forever because there is nothing in it for them, aside from perhaps avoiding too much negative press. Naturally people are going to compare it to iOS, where updates are free and rapidly disseminated. The difference there is that there…

"As has been shown time and time again, vendors really don't want the burden of keeping your handset up to date forever because there is nothing in it for them, aside from perhaps avoiding too much negative press."

The reality is a lot more depressing; the vendors actually want you to buy a new phone.

If your current phone can run the latest version of Android - why would you bother ... ?

Post reply on HN