Samsung will not tell us why /when the will update the SM-G930U

[Dooki]

Unlocked was cheaper. I specified o bought it through a carrier because carriers are more expensive

 

[sydneycooper1979]

Mod Note: Please make sure we are discussing the topic and not the people in the thread. Thank you.

 

[davebwi]

Just to update everyone,
I sent an email to samsung security .. (3 times in the past week, with still no reply)
asking for an update on ,what they told me would be and Early April Nougat update.
When/If I get a reply, I will post it
Thanks, Dave

 

[slick5150]

I still find it ridiculous that Android Central doesn't push the issue with Samsung considering it's a phone they recommended as a buy and continue to promote Samsung phones as great buys. Not suggesting they were wrong (it's still a great piece of hardware and at the time they obviously had no idea the debacle the Nougat update would turn into on the unlocked variants), but there is some responsibility there to their readers to follow up on this.

 

[Ry]

No, actually. They most certainly are NOT covered. That little CYA clause would do it, but they have posted via a Samsung moderator that they were absolutely not abandoning this phone. That they would be providing updates "soon" or "in the coming weeks" as I posted above myself. And the current official message is that they are committed to monthly updates for this phone. I've seen a few mentions that they previously had this phone (well, phones) on a quarterly cycle, but when enough noise was made (not knowing that it was quarterly, because they never said so), they made a commitment to change to monthly security updates.

Had they not made any promises, even third hand, they might be covered.

So that covers them for the quarterly cycle they had us on from December to March, yeah? Again, not really. The clause could be read to apply, but if you read the community threads, you'll see dozens of people being told to go to Best Buy, or use Smart Switch, or "wait a couple weeks". Not "Oh, that phone is on a quarterly cycle, wait 'til March." That's on them.

We can all try to justify this a hundred different ways, but the simple fact is that Samsung screwed up big time. Their own people didn't even know about this phone in some cases, and the Samsung Experience people at Best Buy had no clue there was a phone still waiting for an update.

And that's just the security - arguably more important than the new version of the OS, which even the slowest bloody carrier in North America started rolling out 4 months ago. And not a single word on why these phones weren't being updated. Just "wait a couple weeks" or "go to Best Buy" or "use SmartSwitch". None of which provided a solution. So months after every other S7, Note 5, and S6 has been rolled out a Nougat update, ours are still on Marshmallow.

You cannot seriously think they're just being inconsiderate, or even just a little incompetent here. This is a full blown case of a screwing the pooch blind and no kind of CYA clause is gonna convince me otherwise.

Covered - in a sense that support cadence changed, not ended.

I don't think Samsung is being inconsiderate.

I don't think Samsung is being incompetent on any level.

For the US, I just feel like the unlocked model is not a priority compared to AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon. There's at least 5 and not all can be priority 1. Until they say they're not going to update the unlocked model, I'll assume that the unlocked model is still going to get updates. As for when, I'd rather have OEMs say yes and not give dates so that they don't miss any publicly announced dates like HTC always does.

 

[Ry]

I still find it ridiculous that Android Central doesn't push the issue with Samsung considering it's a phone they recommended as a buy and continue to promote Samsung phones as great buys. Not suggesting they were wrong (it's still a great piece of hardware and at the time they obviously had no idea the debacle the Nougat update would turn into on the unlocked variants), but there is some responsibility there to their readers to follow up on this.

The editors recommendation was on the lack of carrier bloatware and that it actually works on all four major US carriers. They didn't say it would get updates fast.

 

[slick5150]

The editors recommendation was on the lack of carrier bloatware and that it actually works on all four major US carriers. They didn't say it would get updates fast.

There's a big difference between "not fast" and "maybe not at all." And it isn't just Nougat, it takes them months to even push the security updates. I wouldn't care if the unlocked models weren't the highest priority, but since they're now pushing Nougat for the S6 models without updating the unlocked S7/S7Edge, it seems these aren't a priority whatsoever.

That is itself a story worth covering because it should call into question whether anyone should buy the unlocked S8 when it goes on sale next month.

 

[Ry]

There's a big difference between "not fast" and "maybe not at all." And it isn't just Nougat, it takes them months to even push the security updates. I wouldn't care if the unlocked models weren't the highest priority, but since they're now pushing Nougat for the S6 models without updating the unlocked S7/S7Edge, it seems these aren't a priority whatsoever.

That is itself a story worth covering because it should call into question whether anyone should buy the unlocked S8 when it goes on sale next month.

There's a difference between "maybe not at all" and "not at all". Until they say they aren't going to update it, maybe they'll update it.

And if the story is: don't buy the unlocked S8 if you want fast updates, that's the case for every phone not Google or BlackBerry.

Buy Google if you want timely OS and security updates.
Buy BlackBerry if you want timely security updates.

Everything else is a crapshoot.

 

[keyslapper]

I'm curious, Ry,

You seem to be presenting arguments that justify Samsung handling of this phone, and don't seem to think any of the S7 owners are justified in being upset. I know someone wondered whether you were on Samsung PR payroll, and it's easy to see why. I'm not trying to bash Samsung, but from my point of view, their handling of these phones has been abysmal. Period. Using misleading, or even just "flexible" language to get around the expectations they have engendered in their customer base is not acceptable business practice - especially when it's my money.

Personally, I don't think I care whether this phone is a Samsung priority compared to the carriers, at least for device release. It's pretty typical for the carrier branded phones to hit the market first, but in the past, unlocked phones have always gotten the updates first. In fact, the international unlocked phoned did get the Nougat update first - in November. Most of the US carriers also got it in November, and good for them. But even Verizon, the carrier notorious for taking their sweet time getting releases out, started their rollout in December. This is how it has always been, and I think you - and Samsung know it very well. This is the norm that affected my decision to shell out a crapload of my cash for this phone. You can't tell me I was being naive, though clearly I was a little too trusting of a large company like Samsung.

Through this whole fiasco, the biggest problem most of us have is that our phones were put on the quarterly update cycle for security updates, and none of us were told this - despite repeated contact with Samsung - until at least late February. All contacts up to that point received the response that security and OS updates would be available "in the coming weeks."

I'm sorry, but that's just not an answer. "In the coming weeks" makes it sound like it'll be there in a couple weeks, maybe 3, no more than 4. It's not 3 bloody months.

Do I think they were deliberately being misleading? Yes, I do, but I think it was to cover up a blunder. I think they put this phone out because they knew very well there was a user base out there that was waiting for the unlocked phone, but they never included it in their update program. This is the only thing that explains the blank looks at Best Buy and the clueless responses from Samsung support. They fumbled this device badly. I don't believe they even started working in the updates to this phone until sometime in February. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's when we started seeing responses other than "go to Best Buy" or "use SmartSwitch" - none of which were even remotely helpful. That's when they started saying they would get the update out "in the coming weeks". And it wasn't until just recently that they actually gave a timeframe.

If this device were just a lower priority for updates, I could see it's releases coming a month or two behind other builds of this device. I could even see a 4 month delay if there were problems. but recall that the rollout for other devices began mid November. We're at the 5 month mark now, and the closest thing we've got to an actual date is still a month away. If this were just a lower priority than other S7 builds, I still think we would have got the Nougat update before devices 2 generations back.

Yeah, I've pretty much made up my mind that I am not buying another Samsung product. I have also pretty much decided that they've really screwed things up with this device. Nonetheless, I am open to re-evaluating my opinion, if not my decision. But justification by looking at just how flexible the wording of their published policies are is not going to do it. I don't think it's OK to write policy that every reasonable person would interpret the same way, only to find that they have so many loopholes written into the policy that none of it is worth the bandwidth used to read it.

 

[keyslapper]

The editors recommendation was on the lack of carrier bloatware and that it actually works on all four major US carriers. They didn't say it would get updates fast.

That's only part of what an unlocked device buyer is looking for. Right or wrong, the perception is that there are far fewer potential security holes in the unlocked device because the carrier doesn't have crapware / spyware / etc. on that phone.

Of course, if you don't get those security updates for months after they've been discovered and patched for everyone else, is it really more secure, or is it less secure?

Did you know that Samsung was telling owners of these phones not to use Samsung Pay at one point? That's their security plan for this phone.

 

[slick5150]

Ry has been dismissive / bordering on insulting to those of us who have dared question the logic of why Samsung hasn't released, or even given any info, as to the status of updating the unlocked S7 for well over a month now. If he was just some user I'd be fine with that, but as a moderator (therefore a representative of this website) I find it ridiculous. And this will be my last visit to this website if that's the attitude they take of those trying to understand why their flagship phone is being left in the dust.

There are plenty of other sites out there to visit.

 

[Ry]

I'm curious, Ry,

You seem to be presenting arguments that justify Samsung handling of this phone, and don't seem to think any of the S7 owners are justified in being upset. I know someone wondered whether you were on Samsung PR payroll, and it's easy to see why. I'm not trying to bash Samsung, but from my point of view, their handling of these phones has been abysmal. Period. Using misleading, or even just "flexible" language to get around the expectations they have engendered in their customer base is not acceptable business practice - especially when it's my money.

Personally, I don't think I care whether this phone is a Samsung priority compared to the carriers, at least for device release. It's pretty typical for the carrier branded phones to hit the market first, but in the past, unlocked phones have always gotten the updates first. In fact, the international unlocked phoned did get the Nougat update first - in November. Most of the US carriers also got it in November, and good for them. But even Verizon, the carrier notorious for taking their sweet time getting releases out, started their rollout in December. This is how it has always been, and I think you - and Samsung know it very well. This is the norm that affected my decision to shell out a crapload of my cash for this phone. You can't tell me I was being naive, though clearly I was a little too trusting of a large company like Samsung.

Through this whole fiasco, the biggest problem most of us have is that our phones were put on the quarterly update cycle for security updates, and none of us were told this - despite repeated contact with Samsung - until at least late February. All contacts up to that point received the response that security and OS updates would be available "in the coming weeks."

I'm sorry, but that's just not an answer. "In the coming weeks" makes it sound like it'll be there in a couple weeks, maybe 3, no more than 4. It's not 3 bloody months.

Do I think they were deliberately being misleading? Yes, I do, but I think it was to cover up a blunder. I think they put this phone out because they knew very well there was a user base out there that was waiting for the unlocked phone, but they never included it in their update program. This is the only thing that explains the blank looks at Best Buy and the clueless responses from Samsung support. They fumbled this device badly. I don't believe they even started working in the updates to this phone until sometime in February. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's when we started seeing responses other than "go to Best Buy" or "use SmartSwitch" - none of which were even remotely helpful. That's when they started saying they would get the update out "in the coming weeks". And it wasn't until just recently that they actually gave a timeframe.

If this device were just a lower priority for updates, I could see it's releases coming a month or two behind other builds of this device. I could even see a 4 month delay if there were problems. but recall that the rollout for other devices began mid November. We're at the 5 month mark now, and the closest thing we've got to an actual date is still a month away. If this were just a lower priority than other S7 builds, I still think we would have got the Nougat update before devices 2 generations back.

Yeah, I've pretty much made up my mind that I am not buying another Samsung product. I have also pretty much decided that they've really screwed things up with this device. Nonetheless, I am open to re-evaluating my opinion, if not my decision. But justification by looking at just how flexible the wording of their published policies are is not going to do it. I don't think it's OK to write policy that every reasonable person would interpret the same way, only to find that they have so many loopholes written into the policy that none of it is worth the bandwidth used to read it.

I've already stated in this thread "I get that you're angry."

It's been my experience that support forum personnel are so far from the actual work (in this case, the update schedule) that I'd take anything they say with a giant grain of salt. They should be working from the same script. If they're​ actually coordinated, the answer would be the same no matter who you asked. It sounds like they're not. It's frustrating. I get it.

Without knowing the internal schedule - something consumers aren't usually privy to, I can't reasonably assume that a "delay" should be two months vs. six months. They might not even be delayed. This could be their plan all along. Outside of Google, who control the Android OS updates and security updates (beginning of the month) and BlackBerry, who committed hard and sometimes beat Google to security updates, virtually know one shares an accurate schedule. If they do, they usually miss it (I'm looking at you, HTC).

It goes back to the incorrect assumption that unlocked models should get updates first or fast since carriers aren't supposed to be involved. It goes back to relying on support representatives that might not be able to say what you want them to say.

 

[Ry]

Ry has been dismissive / bordering on insulting to those of us who have dared question the logic of why Samsung hasn't released, or even given any info, as to the status of updating the unlocked S7 for well over a month now. If he was just some user I'd be fine with that, but as a moderator (therefore a representative of this website) I find it ridiculous. And this will be my last visit to this website if that's the attitude they take of those trying to understand why their flagship phone is being left in the dust.

There are plenty of other sites out there to visit.

My opinions are my own. I'm allowed to have them and express them just as much as you are.

 

[Ry]

That's only part of what an unlocked device buyer is looking for. Right or wrong, the perception is that there are far fewer potential security holes in the unlocked device because the carrier doesn't have crapware / spyware / etc. on that phone.

Of course, if you don't get those security updates for months after they've been discovered and patched for everyone else, is it really more secure, or is it less secure?

Did you know that Samsung was telling owners of these phones not to use Samsung Pay at one point? That's their security plan for this phone.

But the attack on the Android Central Editor's recommendation seems to be along the lines of "the unlocked Galaxy S7 shouldn't be recommended because it's not getting updated as fast as carrier models".

I'm interpreting AC's recommendation as "the Galaxy S7 is one of the best overall phones for most people and with the unlocked version, which actually works with all four major US carriers instead of just AT&T and T-Mobile, it's even better because you don't have to deal with carrier bloatware." I don't see anything in AC's recommendation that implies they're recommending it because it's supposed to get updates fast.

In your opinion, should the "best unlocked phones" list be revised to just have the Google Pixel and BlackBerry PRIV?

 

[SteelCityPgh]

But the attack on the Android Central Editor's recommendation seems to be along the lines of "the unlocked Galaxy S7 shouldn't be recommended because it's not getting updated as fast as carrier models".

As here's where your assumption is wrong. Our beef is generated by the fact that, for a lot of us, this premium flagship phone has, at times, become unusable for its intended purpose. It's not necessarily just a lack of "fast updates', but any updates at all.

The fact that it has been blacklisted at times by my company, and others, because the Security Patches were so far behind; the fact that, as @keyslapper noted, we were told at one point to disable Samsung Pay because of the lack of Security updates; the fact that Samsung has broken numerous promises to fix said issues - these are just some of the reasons that we're asking how AC can continue to, in good conscious, recommend a product that has such glaring deficiencies. Especially considering the purchase price that was paid.

Now, as far as "fast updates" go, let's get to the Nougat issue. At this point it's not even just a case of 'I bought an unlocked phone for a premium so I deserve the latest and greatest'. Even though many of us were told prior to purchase that we would be some of the first to get the upgrade, 7.0 provides a lot of additional major security enhancements that we don't yet have!

Let me use an analogy. Maybe it's relevant, maybe it's not - but it's the best I can think of.

You buy a house. You buy it in the Northeast of the US in July. You are told that the roof will be sealed once a month and that after the new upgrades start to come out in October, you'll be one of the first to receive them. A couple of months go by and your not getting that monthly sealing for your roof. It starts to leak. You start questioning the builder and he tells you that he'll patch it "soon". Another month goes by and the roof is collapsing and bad guys can now just enter you home and start stealing things. You call the builder again, and this time he tells you that, he promises, the roof will get repaired "soon". In the meantime, he recommends that you move out of your house for the time being. A house THAT YOU PAID TOP DOLLAR FOR! Finally in December, he comes and does the patch. Whew! Catastrophe averted. But then, you go through the same thing again! No sealing of the roof in January. Or February. By this time, snow is coming into your house. You're afraid you're going to get electrocuted from the leaks, so the builders solution is to tell you to just 'disable' the electricity. That's his solution. Beginning of March rolls around and you have to move out again because it's not safe! Finally in late March you get the roof patched again but now you start looking around the neighborhood. You notice that all of your neighbors got that "upgrade" you were told you would be in the front of the line for, but you're the only one stuck with the old version. You question this numerous times but every time you're only told the same answer you've been given before - "soon".

If your mother asked you...could you...would you...honestly give a 'Best of' recommendation to her for that house and that builder?

Well, we're stuck with that house...the roof keeps leaking every couple of months and we're still waiting for that 'upgrade'.

One last thing...

I can't reasonably assume that a "delay" should be two months vs. six months. They might not even be delayed. This could be their plan all along.

Do you really think that, if this is the case and that this has been their plan all along, that this is acceptable for a premium priced flagship phone? One that deserves a recommendation of 'Best of'?

 

[SteelCityPgh]

I'm curious, Ry,....

Well said. EVERYTHING in that post was well said as to our frustrations.

 

[davebwi]

Hello everyone, Well I started this thread to bring attention to the fact that our unlocked Samsung S7 Phones, Model # SM-G930U and the SM-G935U are not getting the Updates/ Upgrades that we as purchaser's thought we would. I have been in the Electronics Industry for 30 + years. I have has Cell phones since my first BAG phone .
To me and the many others on these forums an Unlocked phone came with some "Understood" benefits.Lets face it ,what "normal "customer would know or understand what an unlocked phone is. The people that purchase them are Technical types, that enjoy the "Latest" technology" . Yes these are Assumptions, But The Current Samsung Corporation, seems to have Employees that dont get this. We dont need to Yell at each other about "Legal wordings" and that stuff. I just wanted another avenue to "Get the word out" that we Owners of these Phones dont like what is going on , and want the Manufacturer(Samsung) to hear our issues and, If they want to continue as a leading cell phone maker, to change their current policy. This is why I wanted people to Chime in. Numbers seem to help get the point to others.
Thanks to all that have Chimed in, and lets keep the subject on Target...SAMSUNG!! not each other.
Thanks, Dave

 

[keyslapper]

But the attack on the Android Central Editor's recommendation seems to be along the lines of "the unlocked Galaxy S7 shouldn't be recommended because it's not getting updated as fast as carrier models".

I'm interpreting AC's recommendation as "the Galaxy S7 is one of the best overall phones for most people and with the unlocked version, which actually works with all four major US carriers instead of just AT&T and T-Mobile, it's even better because you don't have to deal with carrier bloatware." I don't see anything in AC's recommendation that implies they're recommending it because it's supposed to get updates fast.

In your opinion, should the "best unlocked phones" list be revised to just have the Google Pixel and BlackBerry PRIV?

Hah! Ok, that would be a little ridiculous.

And as for the attack on the AC Editor's recommendations, no, I don't think that was what was intended - at least that's not how I would have preferred to come across myself. The problem is that this fiasco (and it is a fiasco) should warrant a more prominent warning against purchasing the unlocked variant.

Yet another thing that pours salt in the wound here, is that the AC editor is right. The hardware is awesome. Period. I say that without reservation. The screen is clear, crisp, and the phone is very snappy. And when protected by an Otterbox and a Zagg screen protector, it's really durable too.

The problem is the security factor. They changed the support cadence and didn't tell us until they were almost 3 months behind the monthly commitment we were all going on. Then they told us the phone had been on a quarterly cadence, but they were committing to a monthly cadence going forward. We'll find out about that in another week or two.

During this time, there were known security flaws in these phones, and owners were told not to use them in certain ways, and to avoid using the Samsung Pay feature. Who wants to hear that? If you found that your gun safe had a security flaw, what would you do, ignore it? Maybe you don't have one, but I do - 3, in fact, and I put just about the same effort in researching the best options for each one of those, as I did for this phone. Just to be clear, if I found that any one of my gun safes were not every bit as secure as my research led me to believe they were, I'd raise a whole Hell of a lot more fuss than I'm raising about this phone. Would you think I was being unreasonable then? Would you expect me to be patient and just hope nothing goes wrong, even though I have kids in my home? Security is not a video game, it's not VR features, and it's not an OS version number. It's real life and people really do get hurt when they ignore it. Identities and credit cards are stolen every day, fraudulent tax returns are filed every single year, and companies are figuring out how to target specific individuals for advertising - and even aggressive political campaigns based on the geographical location of their phones (like this).

This may seem like just noise to some people, but it's not. It's a violation of privacy that I am not OK with. You can argue that many of those people make mistakes that make it easier for these things to happen, and in some cases that's correct. However, no matter my level of caution, any security flaw in my phone could be party to a violation like this without any negligence on my part, so I want them fixed ASAP. I am very much aware that these problems happen, the always have, and they always will. I write code for a living, and I've studied some of the coding mistakes that have actually cost lives - ever hear of the Therac-25 incidents? But once discovered, these problems must be fixed within a reasonable time frame.

The reason for this fuss is quite simple: My information is serious stuff - at least to me. It can do me real harm in the wrong hands, just like a firearm can (as seen on almost a daily basis around the world). I know I'm not the Secretary of State or an NSA director, or even a billionaire with way more money than sense. I'm just a software developer with more of my career behind me than before me, but my information is very important to me, and my phone is not a gaming machine. I like that this phone has apps like Disconnect Pro available for free, and I do use them. I use VPNs (more than one) on this phone. I take security seriously. And almost 9 months ago, I shelled out more than $750 for a device that should be secure enough for me to carry out my day to day boring business with an absolute minimum of fuss or worry.

I realize you're just playing Devil's Advocate, and in some of that I agree, you are correct. But I still believe the wording of their support statements would only cover them if they had released a timely statement saying that the support cadence had changed - even without advance notice, cause it's clear they say it can change without prior notice. But for months, they strung us along, apparently not even aware these phones existed. How is that not either incompetence or inconsideration?

 

[Ry]

As here's where your assumption is wrong. Our beef is generated by the fact that, for a lot of us, this premium flagship phone has, at times, become unusable for its intended purpose. It's not necessarily just a lack of "fast updates', but any updates at all.

The fact that it has been blacklisted at times by my company, and others, because the Security Patches were so far behind; the fact that, as @keyslapper noted, we were told at one point to disable Samsung Pay because of the lack of Security updates; the fact that Samsung has broken numerous promises to fix said issues - these are just some of the reasons that we're asking how AC can continue to, in good conscious, recommend a product that has such glaring deficiencies. Especially considering the purchase price that was paid.

Are you DoD?

I'm in medical hardware and software, large 100+ year-old company. I deal with security every single day. It sounds like a good number of current devices aren't eligible for your company's BYOD program - like only Google, Nexus, and carrier S7s would be eligible in terms of Android? That is pretty damn surprising to me, especially with KNOX on Samsung.

My company has relatively simple requirements: device must be encrypted and protected with a password (not PIN, not swipe). Fingerprint with backup password is OK. We have to run AirWatch to separate work and personal data. And we're not even looking at Android Security Patch Levels, but I think we have a requirement for KitKat or higher.

You continue to harp on premium and the price that you paid for the S7 like you should get special treatment over the carrier S7s. Why? Why is the unlocked model so much more important?

Now, as far as "fast updates" go, let's get to the Nougat issue. At this point it's not even just a case of 'I bought an unlocked phone for a premium so I deserve the latest and greatest'. Even though many of us were told prior to purchase that we would be some of the first to get the upgrade, 7.0 provides a lot of additional major security enhancements that we don't yet have!

Let me use an analogy. Maybe it's relevant, maybe it's not - but it's the best I can think of.

You buy a house. You buy it in the Northeast of the US in July. You are told that the roof will be sealed once a month and that after the new upgrades start to come out in October, you'll be one of the first to receive them. A couple of months go by and your not getting that monthly sealing for your roof. It starts to leak. You start questioning the builder and he tells you that he'll patch it "soon". Another month goes by and the roof is collapsing and bad guys can now just enter you home and start stealing things. You call the builder again, and this time he tells you that, he promises, the roof will get repaired "soon". In the meantime, he recommends that you move out of your house for the time being. A house THAT YOU PAID TOP DOLLAR FOR! Finally in December, he comes and does the patch. Whew! Catastrophe averted. But then, you go through the same thing again! No sealing of the roof in January. Or February. By this time, snow is coming into your house. You're afraid you're going to get electrocuted from the leaks, so the builders solution is to tell you to just 'disable' the electricity. That's his solution. Beginning of March rolls around and you have to move out again because it's not safe! Finally in late March you get the roof patched again but now you start looking around the neighborhood. You notice that all of your neighbors got that "upgrade" you were told you would be in the front of the line for, but you're the only one stuck with the old version. You question this numerous times but every time you're only told the same answer you've been given before - "soon".

If your mother asked you...could you...would you...honestly give a 'Best of' recommendation to her for that house and that builder?

Well, we're stuck with that house...the roof keeps leaking every couple of months and we're still waiting for that 'upgrade'.

Here we go with "premium" and "TOP DOLLAR" again.

"Many of use were told..." - this is why I'm looking for official word.

Doing a bit of my own research, Jason Cipriani of ZDNet mentions

In Samsung's defense, the company never promised or committed to a faster update schedule. When the unlocked S7 was announced, I pressed the company on the aspect of faster updates and was met with the standard PR line of "nothing further to announce."

Kellex over at Droid Life also says no promise of updates was actually made though I'm leaning towards his statement being about OS updates rather than security updates.

To be fair to Samsung, they never did tell us to expect timely updates on these unlocked models. They simply said that they were unlocked and would work on all major US carriers. After that, it’s been a quarterly-ish update cycle that is behind carrier variants and those from across the the pond. We’re just annoyed by it since phones that lack a carrier attachment should (in theory) be easier to update. That either hasn’t been the case here or Samsung just doesn’t care.

But just like many people that are upset, Kellex also has that incorrect assumption that the unlocked model should get faster updates because it's not tied to a carrier.

In reality, Cipriani also found out that the unlocked models have been on a quarterly cadence all along but that - and this is my interpretation - starting with the next round of updates, they should be monthly.

I sent an inquiry of my own, and received an identical response:

"Due to various circumstances, we have been releasing security updates for unlocked (open) Galaxy devices in the U.S. on a quarterly basis. However, we have now resolved the challenges; and we are committed to releasing security updates for those devices on a monthly basis."

Furthermore, the email states the company will release the March security update "soon." It's unclear if that update will include Nougat, but there's no reason to believe otherwise.

When that update will come? I don't know. You don't know. It's frustrating you because you feel lied to. Is it OK to have the March 2017 update in May?

(I'll still go back to "you incorrectly assumed" every single time)

Kellex has doubts on Samsung's commitment so it wouldn't surprise me if the unlocked Galaxy S7s stuck to quarterly.

Also, we won’t be recommending the unlocked Galaxy S8 until Samsung fully promises timely updates. And I’m not talking about a random email from a Samsung branch I’ve never heard of.

One last thing...

Do you really think that, if this is the case and that this has been their plan all along, that this is acceptable for a premium priced flagship phone? One that deserves a recommendation of 'Best of'?

Again with the price.

Do I find quarterly updates acceptable? Personally, I do. Updates are hard. These OEMs already have your money. I get the business side. There's a cost on maintenance and sometimes it may justify losing some good will with some users because projections for the next thing will more than make up for any perceived loss of business.

The Galaxy S7 has excellent hardware and takes excellent photos. To me, it's a premium device, even if it's on the December 2016 security patch in April of 2017.

And again - the AC recommendation isn't because the unlocked S7 is supposed to get updates fast. It's still a great overall phone for most people. And the unlocked is a good choice if you want all the S7 brings to the table without a DirecTV ad in your notification shade or VZ Navigator in your app drawer.

Also, as a moderator here, I actually see a lot of people not wanting updates at all. Crazy right? When OS updates come out, we get tons of threads that question why things were changed or an old workflow is now different and they hate it or help I need instructions on how to block an update or help I need instructions on how to go back to the original OS.

But just as you wanted, Cipriani changed his stance on the S7:

Going forward, purchasing an unlocked Samsung Galaxy device isn't something I would recommend to anyone unless the company commits to monthly security updates.

Carrier apps and services are a hassle to deal with, but at this point are the cost of having up-to-date security and features on a smartphone. For now, at least, that's a price I'm willing to pay.

And I'll fire back - do you think the Android Central Editor's recommendation for "best unlocked phones" should just be the Pixel, currently supported Nexus, and whatever unlocked BlackBerry devices are out there because of security updates?

 

[Ry]

Hah! Ok, that would be a little ridiculous.

And as for the attack on the AC Editor's recommendations, no, I don't think that was what was intended - at least that's not how I would have preferred to come across myself. The problem is that this fiasco (and it is a fiasco) should warrant a more prominent warning against purchasing the unlocked variant.

Yet another thing that pours salt in the wound here, is that the AC editor is right. The hardware is awesome. Period. I say that without reservation. The screen is clear, crisp, and the phone is very snappy. And when protected by an Otterbox and a Zagg screen protector, it's really durable too.

The problem is the security factor. They changed the support cadence and didn't tell us until they were almost 3 months behind the monthly commitment we were all going on. Then they told us the phone had been on a quarterly cadence, but they were committing to a monthly cadence going forward. We'll find out about that in another week or two.

I'll still go back to the AC Editor's recommendations not solely being about security updates.

During this time, there were known security flaws in these phones, and owners were told not to use them in certain ways, and to avoid using the Samsung Pay feature. Who wants to hear that? If you found that your gun safe had a security flaw, what would you do, ignore it? Maybe you don't have one, but I do - 3, in fact, and I put just about the same effort in researching the best options for each one of those, as I did for this phone. Just to be clear, if I found that any one of my gun safes were not every bit as secure as my research led me to believe they were, I'd raise a whole Hell of a lot more fuss than I'm raising about this phone. Would you think I was being unreasonable then? Would you expect me to be patient and just hope nothing goes wrong, even though I have kids in my home? Security is not a video game, it's not VR features, and it's not an OS version number. It's real life and people really do get hurt when they ignore it. Identities and credit cards are stolen every day, fraudulent tax returns are filed every single year, and companies are figuring out how to target specific individuals for advertising - and even aggressive political campaigns based on the geographical location of their phones (like this).

Did a bulletin go out? No really, I'm curious. How did they notify users of the G930U/G935U to not use Samsung Pay? A simple Google search for "don't use samsung pay unlocked s7" didn't really come up with any relevant results. Was it just a something posted by Samsung support forum staff? An email to unlocked S7 owners?

The reason for this fuss is quite simple: My information is serious stuff - at least to me. It can do me real harm in the wrong hands, just like a firearm can (as seen on almost a daily basis around the world). I know I'm not the Secretary of State or an NSA director, or even a billionaire with way more money than sense. I'm just a software developer with more of my career behind me than before me, but my information is very important to me, and my phone is not a gaming machine. I like that this phone has apps like Disconnect Pro available for free, and I do use them. I use VPNs (more than one) on this phone. I take security seriously. And almost 9 months ago, I shelled out more than $750 for a device that should be secure enough for me to carry out my day to day boring business with an absolute minimum of fuss or worry.

I realize you're just playing Devil's Advocate, and in some of that I agree, you are correct. But I still believe the wording of their support statements would only cover them if they had released a timely statement saying that the support cadence had changed - even without advance notice, cause it's clear they say it can change without prior notice. But for months, they strung us along, apparently not even aware these phones existed. How is that not either incompetence or inconsideration?

These updates have a plan against them. You're a software developer - you should know, things can change.

But I did notice you said "should be secure enough". And while yes - security updates are important, but they're not the only thing. There's KNOX. There's Google Play Services.

I'm of the opinion that for most OEMs their stance on security will only change when a huge flaw is discovered and actually exploited. So far, while devices have been vulnerable, we haven't seen any major actual breaches because of those vulnerabilities.

I'm also of the opinion that while it's good to vent, it's good to air out frustrations to these OEMs in places like their support forums or on their social media channels, the absolute best way to make your voice heard is to speak with your wallet. If security is important to you and there is no real commitment to Android Security updates - or at least a commitment that's not acceptable to you because I don't know if quarterly or monthly is OK for you - you don't buy the phone. That $750 should be spent on a device that meets your highest priorities and we know historically, it's Google and BlackBerry on the Android side.