The story behind the 'Samsung doesn't want you to have Froyo' thing ...

[tcfla]

Just a poor clumsy attempt to entice users to spend more money on products that are not updated and just let behind. #NeverAgain #NeverAgain #NeverAgain

 

[patrick533]

The bummer to this all is, we live with a neutered phone. My supervisor has a Sprint phone with 2.2 on it, playing with his phone vs. mine, no biggie. The thing I miss from clear back to my RAZR, no voice dialing on my in car Bluetooth speakerphone. The police in Kalifornia are very aggressive about the hands free thingie, I would be happy with just a patch or app that would do hands free dialing! I got pulled over the other day for holding the remote control to my Sirius Satellite and the cop and I had a 20 minute argument about what it was! (Why is it Cops always seem to be "rocket scientists" but decided to blow off that career and paycheck to "serve and protect")

I work at a Federal facility and flash would be great, not a deal breaker. The internet access I have at work is full, but monitored. That is why I switched from my Blackberry to my Captivate, internet access, on base I can see the tower we use, so the speeds are good and the Captivate does not at all disappoint, actually this thing ROCKS compared to my 9700 and the POS browser they have!

If you want a lot of updates, switch to Blackberry, they have a new release every week and then everyone gets together to figure out what is fixed and if anything got broke…..

Rooting and flashing for someone with my technical expertise is not a problem (BSEE, 20+ years of experience), but working for the feds, did someone put something in the code to track people? Leak my texts and E-mails? The last thing I want to do is de-compile code for a stupid phone, it just should work….. I have a free upgrade next month and I am already looking at the new Motorola that AT&T will be getting or maybe a new Blackberry, but even with Blackberry 6.0, it is archaic! Iphone, NOT in this life time!

As far as a lawsuit, I have been involved in a few for patent infringements that went Federal and set precedence in Federal court (No I was not being sued). By the time it gets to the point of where it will get shot down for NO MERIT, they will already have released Froyo…….

Anybody know of an app that will work with my Bluetooth? I have searched EVERYWHERE! I like my phone and will have it at least for 2 more months, but would prefer to use it until 3.0 is released on another handset (saving my upgrade for just that).

 

[Daedalus]

Samsung also said this when asked about it, in an interview or whatbe, and it was mostly reported on Android websites like Android Central and others. I've never once seen a commercial (which is where 95% of the average user is going to see it's information on a phone, aside from in-store) touting "This phone will be upgraded to Android 2.2!"

Yes, they said we would get it. Yes, I'm frustrated that we haven't gotten it. Grounds for a class action lawsuit based on false ADVERTISING? Nope.

Ok if a Employee of a Company makes a statement while acting as a Representative of such company on Paper, Audio Recording or Video Recording aka Media about a Product or the features of such product this is classified as advertisement. Being that Presentations at multiple Technical Events, Comments on Twitter, and Reports made to Media outlets from Several Employees including the a Senior VP or was he the President of the Mobile Division have been made and recorded as such this advertisement, and does not require that a majority of the population have seen it.

Hell if I memory serves me correctly this may well be a Violation of the California Consumers Protection Act, which Verizon had a suit filed against with over the disabling of the GPS on cell phones, yet the Item was sold clearly stating the phone did have those capabilities.

 

[Chris Kerrigan]

Ok if a Employee of a Company makes a statement while acting as a Representative of such company on Paper, Audio Recording or Video Recording aka Media about a Product or the features of such product this is classified as advertisement. Being that Presentations at multiple Technical Events, Comments on Twitter, and Reports made to Media outlets from Several Employees including the a Senior VP or was he the President of the Mobile Division have been made and recorded as such this advertisement, and does not require that a majority of the population have seen it.

Hell if I memory serves me correctly this may well be a Violation of the California Consumers Protection Act, which Verizon had a suit filed against with over the disabling of the GPS on cell phones, yet the Item was sold clearly stating the phone did have those capabilities.

In most states (not sure about California), a statement made from an employee does not classify as advertising. Advertising comes in print, TV ads, and so on. If it was labeled IN the store that it was "receiving Froyo" then that'd be different, but it doesn't.

And in fact, it doesn't even necessarily matter what the state says. The FCC has ultimate authority to define advertising, and that's a federal agency.

 

[Daedalus]

In most states (not sure about California), a statement made from an employee does not classify as advertising. Advertising comes in print, TV ads, and so on. If it was labeled IN the store that it was "receiving Froyo" then that'd be different, but it doesn't.

And in fact, it doesn't even necessarily matter what the state says. The FCC has ultimate authority to define advertising, and that's a federal agency.

You are entirely incorrect. First advertising falls under the auspices of the Federal Trade Commission not the Federal Communications Commision. Second each and every state has a department of consumer affairs that deals with the local laws that can be more stringent then the federal law. Class actions can be filed in federal court or state.

 

[Chris Kerrigan]

You're correct about the FTC. My bad there, however, under your theory, false advertising claims would be filed 10x more often than they are now. Just look at 75% of false advertising claims in state and federal courts, they get thrown out. The reason? Because they don't have anything to substantiate their claim.

The bottom line is, there are laws that protect companies as well. A company can not be held liable for something an employee says when it comes to things like that. When Samsung actually starts putting out ads either on it's website, on TV or in print, then I'll consider it false advertising. Otherwise, people can say they should file a class action lawsuit all the time, but I guarantee it'll go nowhere.

Furthermore, when Samsung comes out and says "Sorry, we won't be delivering Froyo" then MAYBE you can begin to talk about false advertising accusations. Until then, Samsung can't be sued for anything.

 

[Daedalus]

You're correct about the FTC. My bad there, however, under your theory, false advertising claims would be filed 10x more often than they are now. Just look at 75% of false advertising claims in state and federal courts, they get thrown out. The reason? Because they don't have anything to substantiate their claim.

The bottom line is, there are laws that protect companies as well. A company can not be held liable for something an employee says when it comes to things like that. When Samsung actually starts putting out ads either on it's website, on TV or in print, then I'll consider it false advertising. Otherwise, people can say they should file a class action lawsuit all the time, but I guarantee it'll go nowhere.

Furthermore, when Samsung comes out and says "Sorry, we won't be delivering Froyo" then MAYBE you can begin to talk about false advertising accusations. Until then, Samsung can't be sued for anything.

And I said it was the CEO that stated it'd at a trade show on film. It was not a private conversation and he was there in his role of ceo... so that should qualify under the law as advetisement. You are right they have not come out and said that they are going to release Froyo yet, but once the 4G is released they have ground to argue that Samsung has stopped development based off their actions in the past.

If this source comes forward (which I doubt he would) you can use his info to argue the case.

I have yet to say that the case can be win or not but they have enough to file and have it heard based on the he speach from the CEO, and faulty hardware. And just having the case heard we asco consumers have won as it leaves Samsung with a black eye.

 

[Chris Kerrigan]

I stand by my original statement -- once Samsung has confirmed we will not be receiving Froyo, then there will be a completely valid reason for a lawsuit, until then, not really. Let's not even mention the fact that the Galaxy S does have Froyo in virtually every other part of the world except the U.S. -- yes, even Canada. The one thing in common? The carriers. The only difference between some of the Canadian Galaxy S phones in Canada and the US is for the most part the carrier and the radio. Samsung has delivered, the US carriers have not.

I'm content with what I have now -- it works as advertised, and that's all I care about. My Fascinate can still out-perform most phones despite running 2.1. And for the record, what we currently use for quadrant scores is a joke, I don't pay much attention to those anymore either.

 

[jokout1]

After reading through all of the previous posts in this thread, I have to thank all of the envolved posters for being very entertaining! I haven't laughed so much at a phone thread since my days with WinMo!
With all that is seriously wrong with our world, it is nice to know that there are still people that have so little to worry about that they threaten law suits over a cell phone os version! LOL!
This very much reminds me of the flap over the HTC Touch Pro 2 on Windows Mobile, it also was a world phone series and seemingly took for ever to what was then the newest WM 6.5. As I remember Europe and Asia got the upgrade early and the US carriers lagged way behind, with Sprint being the worst! Does anything sound familier here?! Oh, and no one was ever going to buy another HTC device either...really hurt their sales didn't it!

Let's keep one thing in perspective here, while sites like these brag big membership numbers, these are still realitively very small communities when compared to the total cell phone using public and this group gets smaller when your talking just Galazxy S phones!
Take this a step further and a VERY small percentage of Galaxy S users will actively be concerned about which version of Andriod they have as long as the phone is working well for them! I hate to burst any ones bubble here, but the vast majority are happy with their phones as long as it makes calls, gets Facebook, and runs Angry Birds!

Note: If you do a little legal research, you will find that as long as Samsung has pushed 2.2 out to the Euro/Assian markets, and the code actually exists and is available they bare no liability...if you really think a company like Samsung would leave their corperate pants down over a legal issue like this, I have some ocean front property in Iowa I will sell you cheap!

Cheers

 

[ricking]

t-mobile is full of ****

it's t-mobile who is holding back the update, so they can sell more of the vibrant 4g, if i decide to buy it , it will be the very last phone that i or anybody will ever need!!!

 

[netposer]

Are Samsung Galaxy S Froyo Updates Being Held Back Because Of Cost?

A few weeks ago, Samsung USA tweeted that Froyo updates for the Galaxy S phones are being delayed due to further testing. Then, just 4 days ago, AndroidSPIN reported that the Vibrant update (if not others) wasn?t rolling out so that the Vibrant wouldn?t steal the Vibrant 4G+?s thunder. And now the saga continues, as a new anonymous source has stepped forth to clarify the issue.

Reportedly an insider who has stepped "? across the NDAs [to] explain the issues behind the Android Froyo update to the Samsung Galaxy S phones in the United States," he/she says:

The rest is here
Are Samsung Galaxy S Froyo Updates Being Held Back Because Of Cost? | Android News, Reviews, Applications, Games, Phones, Devices, Tips, Mods, Videos, Podcasts - Android Police

 

[Chris Kerrigan]

Because this topic has been exhausted to no end, I'm just going to move this in with the hold-back thread in the Vibrant forums.

 

[fwdixon]

A few weeks ago, Samsung USA tweeted that Froyo updates for the Galaxy S phones are being delayed due to further testing. Then, just 4 days ago, AndroidSPIN reported that the Vibrant update (if not others) wasn?t rolling out so that the Vibrant wouldn?t steal the Vibrant 4G+?s thunder. And now the saga continues, as a new anonymous source has stepped forth to clarify the issue.

Reportedly an insider who has stepped "? across the NDAs [to] explain the issues behind the Android Froyo update to the Samsung Galaxy S phones in the United States," he/she says:

The rest is here
Are Samsung Galaxy S Froyo Updates Being Held Back Because Of Cost? | Android News, Reviews, Applications, Games, Phones, Devices, Tips, Mods, Videos, Podcasts - Android Police

You know what? that sounds far more plausible than any of the "we want more sales" stuff.

 

[gitit20]

Real Reason Why 2.2 Has Not Been Pushed Out

To explain the political situation, first, a primer on how phone firmware upgrades work for carriers. When a carrier decides to sell a phone, a contract is usually written between the phone manufacturer and the carrier. In this contract, the cost of updates (to the carrier) is usually outlined. Updates are usually broken into several types: critical updates, maintenance updates, and feature updates. Critical updates are those that resolve a critical bug in the phone, such as the phone overheating. Maintenance updates involve routine updates to resolve bugs and other issues reported by the carrier. Finally, feature updates add some new feature in software that wasn?t present before. Critical updates are usually free, maintenance updates have some maintenance fee associated with them, and feature updates are usually costly. In the past, most phone updates would mainly consist of critical and maintenance updates. Carriers almost never want to incur the cost of a feature update because it is of little benefit to them, adds little to the device, and involves a lot of testing on the carrier end. Android has changed the playing field, however ? since the Android Open Source Project is constantly being updated, and that information being made widely available to the public, there is pressure for the phone to be constantly updated with the latest version of Android. With most manufacturers, such as HTC, Motorola, etc. This is fine and considered a maintenance upgrade. Samsung, however, considers it a feature update, and requires carriers to pay a per device update fee for each incremental Android update.

Now, here?s where the politics come in: most U.S. carriers aren?t very happy with Samsung?s decision to charge for Android updates as feature updates, especially since they are essentially charging for the Android Open Source Project?s efforts, and the effort on Samsung?s end is rather minimal. As a result of perhaps, corporate collusion, all U.S. carriers have decided to refuse to pay for the Android 2.2 update, in hopes that the devaluation of the Galaxy S line will cause Samsung to drop their fees and give the update to the carriers. The situation has panned out differently in other parts of the world, but this is the situation in the United States.

Some of you might have noticed Verion?s Fascinate updated, but without 2.2 : This is a result of a maintenance agreement Samsung must honor combined with Verizon?s unwillingness to pay the update fees. In short, Android 2.2 is on hold for Galaxy S phones until the U.S. carriers and Samsung reach a consensus.

Here is my source of my info Are Samsung Galaxy S Froyo Updates Being Held Back Because Of Cost? | Android News, Reviews, Applications, Games, Phones, Devices, Tips, Mods, Videos, Podcasts - Android Police

 

[FSchmitthammer]

To explain the political situation, first, a primer on how phone firmware upgrades work for carriers. When a carrier decides to sell a phone, a contract is usually written between the phone manufacturer and the carrier. In this contract, the cost of updates (to the carrier) is usually outlined. Updates are usually broken into several types: critical updates, maintenance updates, and feature updates. Critical updates are those that resolve a critical bug in the phone, such as the phone overheating. Maintenance updates involve routine updates to resolve bugs and other issues reported by the carrier. Finally, feature updates add some new feature in software that wasn?t present before. Critical updates are usually free, maintenance updates have some maintenance fee associated with them, and feature updates are usually costly. In the past, most phone updates would mainly consist of critical and maintenance updates. Carriers almost never want to incur the cost of a feature update because it is of little benefit to them, adds little to the device, and involves a lot of testing on the carrier end. Android has changed the playing field, however ? since the Android Open Source Project is constantly being updated, and that information being made widely available to the public, there is pressure for the phone to be constantly updated with the latest version of Android. With most manufacturers, such as HTC, Motorola, etc. This is fine and considered a maintenance upgrade. Samsung, however, considers it a feature update, and requires carriers to pay a per device update fee for each incremental Android update.

Now, here?s where the politics come in: most U.S. carriers aren?t very happy with Samsung?s decision to charge for Android updates as feature updates, especially since they are essentially charging for the Android Open Source Project?s efforts, and the effort on Samsung?s end is rather minimal. As a result of perhaps, corporate collusion, all U.S. carriers have decided to refuse to pay for the Android 2.2 update, in hopes that the devaluation of the Galaxy S line will cause Samsung to drop their fees and give the update to the carriers. The situation has panned out differently in other parts of the world, but this is the situation in the United States.

Some of you might have noticed Verion?s Fascinate updated, but without 2.2 : This is a result of a maintenance agreement Samsung must honor combined with Verizon?s unwillingness to pay the update fees. In short, Android 2.2 is on hold for Galaxy S phones until the U.S. carriers and Samsung reach a consensus.

Here is my source of my info Are Samsung Galaxy S Froyo Updates Being Held Back Because Of Cost? | Android News, Reviews, Applications, Games, Phones, Devices, Tips, Mods, Videos, Podcasts - Android Police

Now this makes perfect sense and explains everything. Thank goodness for the ROM chef's and their fine work. The TrulyEpic runs great and I am extremely happy with it.

 

[Chris Kerrigan]

This was moved because we are not having multiple threads basically discussing this issue. It was not burried, as this thread has been quite popular actually. If you have questions about why something was moved, you need to do so through PMs, not the thread itself. That is specifically laid out in the forum rules.

 

[beandon]

This really sucks. Would really like to see the new OS on my device. Guess i'll just have to wait for someone to pull their head outta the sand, or just root my device.

Choices...choices

 

[badmf222]

Froyo, Samsung and U.S. Galaxy S Updates

Not sure if anyone has posted this, nor do I know if this is true. However, if this indeed is the case, anyone who owns a Galaxy S phone in the U.S. is basically getting shafted quite hard. Courtesy of a post on XDA.

The Samsung Secret - Why U.S. Galaxy S Phones run Android 2.1 Still - xda-developers

 

[NickA]

There have been a lot of rumors about this, but it just speculation. I can post something on this forum or another and say I work for Samsung or Verizon and this is what's happening.

Clearly Froyo runs on Galaxy S phones, no one will dispute that. So something is going on, and with large corporations it's usually either political or financial. Either way, I'm sure it will get worked out one way or another. Let's just hope it works in our favor.

 

[sweetmonster457]

Are Samsung Galaxy S Froyo Updates Being Held Back Because Of Cost? | Android News, Reviews, Applications, Games, Phones, Devices, Tips, Mods, Videos, Podcasts - Android Police

this is a great post about samsung being di(ks