What baffles me is why the hell Microsoft didn't follow Apple's route of controlling their own distribution? Now Windows Mobile users have to figure out when their network is going to distribute the update[1]? That is hideous from a user standpoint.
Microsoft has the money to convince the carriers, and probably a lot of weight as well. Why wouldn't they avoid that nightmare?
Granted I don't have a windows phone so it doesn't affect me, but my brief foray into the Android world frustrated the hell out of me in this regard. With Android it was an extra step: Android released, phone manufacturer needed to build their own version of it, then my carrier needed to decide when I could access it.
When Apple announces an update, I can download it whenever I want it.
Actually they offer an app that lets you install updates directly from Microsoft , months before Nokia releases the update. Once Nokia releases its version of the update, it automatically uninstalls the "beta" MS updates. It allowed me to run Windows phone Black update like 4 months before Nokia released them.
The app is called "Preview for Developers" and it makes you sign into your live account.
Yep. Obtaining a dev account isn't terribly difficult (you can get one for free if you use MS's "App Studio" program) and dev unlocking your phone directly follows from that, but it's definitely not a perfect solution.
I think you just have to sign into your live account. Its completely free and took 5 minutes to get install/initiated. After you install , just check updates like you normally would and the new ones should appear. April 8 is when the new 8.1 will appear for anyone with this app installed and registered.
Can someone please explain the role that carriers play in the United States? In most countries, the carrier simply provides you with a SIM card that allows you to make use of their network, but they have nothing to do with your hardware / OS. How come carriers control OS updates in the United States?
To me, this sounds as absurd as an ISP having control of your computer - imagine if you had to wait till your ISP allowed you to update your OS. Yet that seems to be your situation with respect to mobile.
Actually in this case, you even get your PC from your ISP. So i think it works out like this:
first the OS people update it. Then the manufacturers launch a device with said OS. Then your ISP gets to sell said devices to you. (or maybe you can update on your existing device but the ISP still has to approve it)
In simpler words:
In US, people do not directly buy their phones from the manufacturers. They buy the PHONE from the carrier, who also includes a SIM with said phone. And the cost of the phone is distributed over several months and is combined with your monthly cellular service charges.
Pro: you get to have expensive phones for far less.
Con: The carrier apparently gets a lot of say. In fact you can't even switch carriers easily. They make you sign a contact.
Interesting fact: Originally when the smart phones came out in the pre-iPhone era, the carrier's tried to control app stores by having exclusive, carrier specific app-stores. It was apple who convinced one carrier (can't remember which one) to let Apple control the app store and thus this revolution.
It seems to be that way in much of the world - I don't have much knowledge on the topic outside of the UK, but a month or so ago when I was waiting for the new Blackberry OS update to roll out, I had to wait over a month for my network to approve it and send out the update (Vodafone UK), so I kept an eye on stories about the update and saw that it was reaching different networks around the world at different times (for example, Vodafone hadn't put it out to their customers in any other regions either, such as Australia).
This isn't unique to the US. In most countries the carrier restricts ota updates for android and windows phone. I don't know why the iphone is the only device which doesn't need carrier approval prior to rollout. I also don't know why the carriers are involved, but it's definitely not unique to the US, most of europe is the same way.
Well there are only 8 different phones that run iOS, and they are all made by the same company. While there are hundreds of phones that run android made by tens of different companies, it's not that easy to do the same with android.
So this is one thing that puzzles me. Why can't phones have modular drivers like a PC? Phones of today are way more powerful than PC of the past, but it seems that manufacturers still want to keep an appliance like structure for the phone.
In my ideal world, I'd download (say) Android 4.4 and install it on my phone. After that, I'd hunt around, download and install the drivers for my phone like mic, camera, gyro, etc.
Historically a huge amount of effort went into making PC hardware enumerable at runtime and hotpluggable: BIOS, then ISA PnP, then PCI/PCIe, and ACPI. eg. There are BIOS functions dedicated to telling you, in no uncertain terms, what RAM you have and the addresses it appears at.
ARM's architecture is still quite firmly stuck with the embedded approach where you get your memory map and peripheral availability at compile time, probably by reading addresses from a manual published by your SoC manufacturer. Usually at early boot there is nothing which will tell you where your RAM is, what peripherals you have and where they are, etc. You either just have to know, or have some non-standard configuration mechanism which tells you.
Things are improving, but slowly. ACPI exists for ARM and is being actively worked on, but isn't widely deployed yet.
Don't forget that there was also a huge amount of effort invested in making the PC backwards-compatible for software; although this has (unfortunately, IMHO) become somewhat decreased these days, you can still mostly count on a PC having the same "legacy" devices (8042, 8259, 8254, 8237, MC146818) that behave the same as they did in the AT, despite them being integrated into the chipset now. Those weren't enumerable since this was before PnP, but them being there was a pseudo-standard that software could depend on.
In contrast, ARM SoCs are extremely diverse, and the only thing they all have in common is an ARM CPU core. There is no one standard for where the peripherals are, how they behave, how the SoC boots, etc. There is no "standard platform" for ARM like there is the PC for x86. The closest "de-facto" platform I can see for smartphones is the Mediatek MT65xx, which is used by the majority of the generic Chinese ones (and some branded ones, like Lenovo).
Additionally, device tree support in the Linux kernel allows many board specific ports to be packaged onto a single kernel, and the bootloader specify which peripherals and their addresses and features are there. Still nowhere near as powerful as ACPI though.
It is possible but there is no financial incentive to do so. There is no user expectation to install your own OS on a phone like there is a PC. Its just cheaper and easier to develop and test a product if you can assume the hardware/software are in lockstep and you completely control both.
Also you have to keep in mind, the driver situation in the embedded world can get dark fast. Manufacturers wanting to keep datasheets secret, drivers that are just pass-throughs so user space daemons can write to hardware so they don't have to comply with the GPL. It gets weird fast, and why bother with that mess if it won't win any more customers than just a few hardcore hackers and power users.
Sounds like a crummy world to me if you have to hunt around for drivers. I'd rather everything just worked out of the box, with the option to change drivers around later if I want. Getting drivers working is one of the worst parts of an OS install.
I thought that was part of the deal with Windows phone. I thought they would be more on the Apple side of supporting updates on old hardware than the madness of Android. I don't seen any mention in that article about any of their current support phones being left behind. Did I skim past it?
All of the phones are getting updated. The issue is that Microsoft/Nokia/whoever else is involved doesn't have the clout that Apple does with the carriers, so even though the update has already been finished and tested thoroughly by Microsoft, you'll have to wait until the carrier does their own testing and approves it in order for the update to get pushed to everyone's phones. And that can take several months.
They add their own bloatware / proprietary apps to the build. Some are useful (e.g. TMobile's wifi calling) and some are not (partnerships with various app vendors).
Microsoft has the money to convince the carriers, and probably a lot of weight as well. Why wouldn't they avoid that nightmare?
Granted I don't have a windows phone so it doesn't affect me, but my brief foray into the Android world frustrated the hell out of me in this regard. With Android it was an extra step: Android released, phone manufacturer needed to build their own version of it, then my carrier needed to decide when I could access it.
When Apple announces an update, I can download it whenever I want it.
[1] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/micros...