Droid Turbo: Lollipop software update?

[tdizzel]

Even the Galaxy s4 has lollipop now on Verizon. it's pathetic what they've done to the turbo.

Posted via the Android Central App

What have they done to the Turbo? Mine works perfectly, so I must be missing whatever they did.

 

[bespinct]

Can you believe it? The LG G4 is getting Lollipop before we are! Come on Verizonarola, WTF?

Posted via the Android Central App

 

[vzwuser76]

Can you believe it? The LG G4 is getting Lollipop before we are! Come on Verizonarola, WTF?

Posted via the Android Central App

I assume you're being sarcastic, since every new device comes with the newest version of Android available in the last month or two prior to launch.

As for the 2 antenna vs 1 debate, as I posted awhile back, the reason they didn't stay with that had to do with battery life. Early on when they had a 2 antenna setup, the battery life on VoLTE (aka Advance Calling) was abysmal. Going to a single antenna setup lessened the problem, but created a new one in that simultaneous voice and data was now only available in an area covered by LTE. But we've only had simultaneous v&d since LTE started, prior to that we didn't have the capability (except for the few devices capable of SVDO which allowed for sv&d on CDMA). But apparently their options were either stick with the 2 antenna setup and hear people complain about horrible battery life, go to the single antenna setup and hear people complain about no more simultaneous v&d, or continue to delay to rollout of VoLTE and lose money everyday it isn't being utilized. And then there would be the commercials about how AT&T has VoLTE and Verizon doesn't, since GSM carriers aren't affected by the change because they already had sv&d prior to LTE, and LTE and GSM are more similar technologies than LTE and CDMA. Verizon's problem is also that their LTE network doesn't cover as much as their 3G network did, even though they're utilizing the same towers. LTE doesn't carry as far as CDMA 3G. So until they add towers to compensate, their coverage map isn't going to be as accurate as it was when they had 3G.

On another note, while I agree that besides coverage area there are factors that affect a phones performance, like setup, apps installed, etc., we don't know is if LP will solve those issues. Could it? Sure, but there isn't any guarantee that it will. In fact a certain setup could just as easily cause the problem to become worse as it could fix the issue. Now having VoLTE capability baked into Android itself could solve the issues some are having, but it could also do nothing or make them worse depending on how LP works with or against the AC update Verizon pushed out. Maybe we should be looking to phones that have had their AC update as well as the LP update and see if they had issues before that were resolved with the updates. The Moto X 2014 would be the best candidate since it is closest to our setup (same antenna setup and Motorola/Verizon software). However I can't recall if the X got the AC update yet or not, I know some were grumbling they were waiting for it like we are for the 5.1 update.

 

[mobrules]

Screw this. I'm switching to the nexus 6 if we don't have it in about a month. Family member needs one and will pay me for it. They can't get a new one because of contract. I like the idea of the WiFi./hotspot hack. That alone is enough. I will miss the battery life but I can live without that.

 

[bespinct]

I assume you're being sarcastic, since every new device comes with the newest version of Android available in the last month or two prior to launch.

Yup, sarcasm was turned on. It had been a few minutes since someone complained, so I thought I'd fill the silence. I'm gonna go back to lurking now.

Posted via the Android Central App

 

[bpe4]

Here's my take. Almost 2 months ago VZW released the 5.0.x update for the Galaxy S5. They received a veritable sh!tstorm of support calls, and store support visits; many of which demanded exchanges to the point I'm certain the bottom line was severely impacted. All because of what? A software update. AT&T watched and laughed, and despite their S5 users screaming away for Lollipop, they waited a full month later to release their update. The rollout went smoother, but not perfect.

If you remember, 2+ years ago Verizon was the laughing stock of the OS UPDATE community as it was ALWAYS the last to release updates. Then things got better, a whole lot better. Verizon started pushing updates faster than the other 3 carriers which surprised everyone. Flash forward to today, and I think Google has reversed whatever momentum Verizon had. This crap OS upgrade they pushed on the carriers is making Verizon overly cautious again, which is what we're seeing now with the Turbo OS upgrade.

 

[dusoccer10]

I assume you're being sarcastic, since every new device comes with the newest version of Android available in the last month or two prior to launch.

As for the 2 antenna vs 1 debate, as I posted awhile back, the reason they didn't stay with that had to do with battery life. Early on when they had a 2 antenna setup, the battery life on VoLTE (aka Advance Calling) was abysmal. Going to a single antenna setup lessened the problem, but created a new one in that simultaneous voice and data was now only available in an area covered by LTE. But we've only had simultaneous v&d since LTE started, prior to that we didn't have the capability (except for the few devices capable of SVDO which allowed for sv&d on CDMA). But apparently their options were either stick with the 2 antenna setup and hear people complain about horrible battery life, go to the single antenna setup and hear people complain about no more simultaneous v&d, or continue to delay to rollout of VoLTE and lose money everyday it isn't being utilized. And then there would be the commercials about how AT&T has VoLTE and Verizon doesn't, since GSM carriers aren't affected by the change because they already had sv&d prior to LTE, and LTE and GSM are more similar technologies than LTE and CDMA. Verizon's problem is also that their LTE network doesn't cover as much as their 3G network did, even though they're utilizing the same towers. LTE doesn't carry as far as CDMA 3G. So until they add towers to compensate, their coverage map isn't going to be as accurate as it was when they had 3G.

On another note, while I agree that besides coverage area there are factors that affect a phones performance, like setup, apps installed, etc., we don't know is if LP will solve those issues. Could it? Sure, but there isn't any guarantee that it will. In fact a certain setup could just as easily cause the problem to become worse as it could fix the issue. Now having VoLTE capability baked into Android itself could solve the issues some are having, but it could also do nothing or make them worse depending on how LP works with or against the AC update Verizon pushed out. Maybe we should be looking to phones that have had their AC update as well as the LP update and see if they had issues before that were resolved with the updates. The Moto X 2014 would be the best candidate since it is closest to our setup (same antenna setup and Motorola/Verizon software). However I can't recall if the X got the AC update yet or not, I know some were grumbling they were waiting for it like we are for the 5.1 update.

The Moto X on Verizon does not have AC yet. It's on Lollipop, but does not have simultaneous voice and data. Also, from a pure hardware stand point, the Turbo matches up better with the Nexus 6 than the Moto X. The Turbo and Nexus 6 both have a 805 Snapdragon, 3 GB RAM, Adreno 420, and a 2K screen. The Moto X "only" has a 801 Snapdragon, 2 GB RAM, Adreno 330, and a HD screen. From a software perspective, the Turbo is 4.4.4 (with AC), Nexus 6 is 5.1 (with AC), and the Moto X is 5.0 (no AC).

My guess is that Verizon wants as many phones as possible to Lollipop 5.1 due to AC being built-in. Of course, coverage is an on-going issue that Verizon will need to continue to improve due to your insightful post about the differences.

 

[KPMcClave]

Here's my take. Almost 2 months ago VZW released the 5.0.x update for the Galaxy S5. They received a veritable sh!tstorm of support calls, and store support visits; many of which demanded exchanges to the point I'm certain the bottom line was severely impacted. All because of what? A software update. AT&T watched and laughed, and despite their S5 users screaming away for Lollipop, they waited a full month later to release their update. The rollout went smoother, but not perfect.

If you remember, 2+ years ago Verizon was the laughing stock of the OS UPDATE community as it was ALWAYS the last to release updates. Then things got better, a whole lot better. Verizon started pushing updates faster than the other 3 carriers which surprised everyone. Flash forward to today, and I think Google has reversed whatever momentum Verizon had. This crap OS upgrade they pushed on the carriers is making Verizon overly cautious again, which is what we're seeing now with the Turbo OS upgrade.

I'll prreface this by saying that I just recently posted on these forums that no two phones of the same make on the same carrier are the same (because of the many ways we can tweak with settings and apps). Just because one person has a bad experience, or a good one, doesn't mean the next person will have that same experience. I see way too much of the attitude that "mine works, so you're wrong," both here and elsewhere.

However, I have had a hunch that this supposedly widespread Samnsung S5/Verizon Lollipop meltdown is exaggerated. First hand, my wife has the S5 on Verizon. She has not only not had any big issues, she's not had any issues at all. No, I'm not saying that makes "you wrong," I'm just observing that if there were widespread *and* numerous issues, she would be much more likely to have had one of them. That's just the math of it. I acknowledge it could be she didn't have a combo of factors present that caused the issues, or maybe she just got lucky, but the sheer presentation of the issues and their magnitude suggests that is unlikely.

I also recall Phil (I think) wondering aloud in an article on AC about the issues a while back. He had opined similarly that maybe it wasn't as big a problem as was being suggested, because they (AC) weren't seeing the types of widespread feedback (e-mails, forums posts) they would usually see with a bad, bad problem. Again, that's just the math of it, and maybe that also changed after he wrote about it.

Has there been any independent number crunching on this? Something that isn't an anecdotal forum thread. Obviously a thread about issues will have a bunch of people with those issues. Without context, it's hard to say how big an issue really is.

I still maintain that waiting for 4.4.4 on the Droid Maxx was not unlike this wait for Lollipop on the Turbo. In the Maxx's case, Motorola kept pushing back to a later build when they heard it was imminent. They communicated some of this info at the time. It got frustrating because it felt as though they could continue that ad infinitum (there will *always* be another build coming). When we finally got 4.4.4 we were among the first to get that. If not many more get 5.1 before the Turbo (and who knows when that will be) the same thing could be said now.

 

[anon(9408097)]

I can easily download the google now launcher or make the Nova launcher look like android lollipop and yes the interface ends up looking JUST LIKE THE ORIGINAL SOFTWARE INTERFACE.

And I have to say, I prefer the much darker and subtle tones of KitKat on my droid turbo. I always end up changing it back to the original UI. Just because the white material design doesn't really go with my rugged ballistic nylon Droid Turbo.

But of course that's just me. Updates are important. My software has been getting buggier by the day. I don't know what's wrong. Apps are crashing. Apps switcher bug has been getting worse. I don't know.

All I can say is that material design doesn't look as good on the Turbo as the KitKat design does. In my opinion of course. As far as the new features are concerned, like the guest mode and the screen pinning and everything, yes I would love to get those features soon!

Posted via the Android Central App

 

[KPMcClave]

I can easily download the google now launcher or make the Nova launcher look like android lollipop and yes the interface ends up looking JUST LIKE THE ORIGINAL SOFTWARE INTERFACE.

And I have to say, I prefer the much darker and subtle tones of KitKat on my droid turbo. I always end up changing it back to the original UI. Just because the white material design doesn't really go with my rugged ballistic nylon Droid Turbo.

But of course that's just me. Updates are important. My software has been getting buggier by the day. I don't know what's wrong. Apps are crashing. Apps switcher bug has been getting worse. I don't know.

All I can say is that material design doesn't look as good on the Turbo as the KitKat design does. In my opinion of course. As far as the new features are concerned, like the guest mode and the screen pinning and everything, yes I would love to get those features soon!

Posted via the Android Central App

Yeah, I'm with you on Material Design and the new look in Lollipop. I like dark themes and Lollipop is 180 degrees the wrong way. I can control some of that with Nova and themes within apps that have a dark option, but settings and such are still going to be ugly to me in 5.1.

It really leaves me scratching my head that it isn't possible to choose an overall dark theme for an Android phone. Especially for phones with AMOLED displays that get a battery saving benefit from them. While theming is becoming a thing in Android with the HTC and Samsung flagships offering it now, I suspect it won't allow for making the app and settings backgrounds dark. Just accent colors.

 

[anon(9408097)]

I think the theming engines these OEMs are offering nowadays completely overhauls the looks inside out. They really do. They change everything. So I guess you CAN make it darker with those offerings.

I guess this is the choice we have to make now. Skinned version of android which offers darker schemes OR stock? I would take stock any day over skinned versions of android (although I like HTC sense a lot). And KitKat over lollipop on my droid turbo. But I can't say this for sure because I haven't actually used pure lollipop for more than a week.

But looking at the Moto Turbo (Indian version of the droid turbo running lollipop out of the box) reviews online makes me not want the newer software. It doesn't look as good as KitKat.

And it further proves that it's not Motorola that's holding up the update it's Verizon.

If anybody wants to buy an unlocked Turbo running Lollipop out of the box, head over to flipkart and order one and get it shipped! Its a much better deal than Verizon. No bloatware no anything. Just pure android.

Posted via the Android Central App

 

[travaz]

I have a question about new OS releases that I am sure someone on here can answer. When a new OS is released (ie 5.0) how much of the code is new? I am sure that most of the code is just reworked or used as is. (radio code for instance) Also doesn't the manufacturers of the Processors provide the Hooks to let the new OS run on the processors? I am asking because I am wondering how involved the differences are between 4.4.4 and 5.0 and is this the root of the problem?

 

[tvouge]

I have a question about new OS releases that I am sure someone on here can answer. When a new OS is released (ie 5.0) how much of the code is new? I am sure that most of the code is just reworked or used as is. (radio code for instance) Also doesn't the manufacturers of the Processors provide the Hooks to let the new OS run on the processors? I am asking because I am wondering how involved the differences are between 4.4.4 and 5.0 and is this the root of the problem?

Wow. Great question. I'm no expert, but some of my thoughts...

Part of the problem, like you alluded to, is that there are scores of different android phones with different processors and parts. With so many different variables, there obviously are many things that will need to be ironed out on a device to device basis.

The runtime has also changed from dalvik to art, and while this doesn't cause a problem with the OS in and of itself, there are going growing pains as some apps don't play nice with ART, or otherwise result in unintended results. Some apps and functions need to be at least cleaned up to play nice.

As for the main question, how much code is new, I have no idea. I would suspect the change in runtime alone would make optimizing everything necessary, but I could be wrong.

Posted via the Android Central App

 

[MattRevs]

You are being sarcastic, right?

Actually I was being honest.

Posted via the DROID Turbo.

 

[doogald]

There actually is a big software change that may affect AC when the Turbo gets 5.1. Everyone needs to remember that Google built HD Voice/AC into the source of Lollipop. Currently, AC is a modification (for lack of a better term) to KitKat or Lollipop 5.0.x. I'm not seeing the same type of complaining on the Nexus 6 threads about AC.

Granted this change will probably not make a difference in low coverage areas or true hardware issues, but it might make subtle differences for some people.

Regarding AC from Motorola---

"Your concern is 100% spot on. *It will only do data/calls at the same time over VoLTE. *

This is very frustrating. *For 3.5 years (since the Thunderbolt) Android devices on Verizon that used Snapdragon processors (95% of them anyway) had a dual antenna setup to accommodate*- one for 1x/cdma/voice, the other for data. *Now because of VoLTE, Verizon is releasing devices (the new X and now the Turbo - the iPhone 6 was the same, but all iPhones lack the dual antenna setup) without the dual antenna setup, basically forcing dependence on their VoLTE, which is beta at best right now. *

I live in one of the strongest LTE areas in the country, and still drop back to 3G in a few places, especially a couple of buildings. *If you're in an area where LTE isn't great, VoLTE is useless and pointless. *
I definitely blame Verizon on this one for being way too confident in their VoLTE network, way too early. *Simultaneous voice/data is important to anybody on the go on a regular basis."

Posted via the Android Central App

VoLTE is pretty new and surely there is a good chance that it will get better, but it's not going to be lollipop that does this: it's going to be a change on Verizon's network that does (namely, one that allows handoff between VoLTE and CDMA...
If you buy a car the carpet isn't necessarily "important" to you, but if it came half installed you would want it fixed right? But I will take my phone in to be looked at. Even with that issue and slow OS update I still love the turbo. All phones have issues, and I get that. Its all of the phones strengths that I love the phone for , not one one or two features.

I have a question about new OS releases that I am sure someone on here can answer. When a new OS is released (ie 5.0) how much of the code is new? I am sure that most of the code is just reworked or used as is. (radio code for instance) Also doesn't the manufacturers of the Processors provide the Hooks to let the new OS run on the processors? I am asking because I am wondering how involved the differences are between 4.4.4 and 5.0 and is this the root of the problem?

I'm not sure about actual Android code, but hardware interfaces to things like the radios and chipsets are actually drivers that are written by the hardware makers, in consultation with Google and the OEMs. So, qualcomm has a driver for the Snapdragon chipsets and for the mobile radio interface. It's really not a part of Android code per se. It's similar to printer, display, USB devices, etc., drivers in Windows.

I think that the root of the problem is that Google provided an unusually buggy build of Android this time, and perhaps the manufacturers are likely reluctant to keep building until it's more stable, though the fact that the Turbo doesn't have an upgrade by now really means that people who decided these things just don't think it's a priority, for whatever reason.

For the most part, the phone runs fine on KitKat, so at least there's that. And there are no big security bugs that this 4.4.4 build is vulnerable to. However, it really could have been, and should have been, updated by now. This phone's hardware is pretty close to the Nexus 6, so hardware drivers have existed for a long time. Perhaps the Droid specific software features (Zap, the command center widget) are posing issues, but I kind of doubt it, and I really doubt that there is some obscure hardware in the Turbo that doesn't have a lollipop ready driver by now.

By this time in the KitKat cycle, not only did the 2013 Droids already have KitKat, for months, but the 18+ month old 2012 Droids were about ready to start a soak test (May 6 last year.) This one is just being handled terribly, and there is plenty of blame for it to go around (Motorola, Verizon and Google).

 

[Rob_B]

I'm not sure about actual Android code, but hardware interfaces to things like the radios and chipsets are actually drivers that are written by the hardware makers, in consultation with Google and the OEMs. So, qualcomm has a driver for the Snapdragon chipsets and for the mobile radio interface. It's really not a part of Android code per se. It's similar to printer, display, USB devices, etc., drivers in Windows.

I think that the root of the problem is that Google provided an unusually buggy build of Android this time, and perhaps the manufacturers are likely reluctant to keep building until it's more stable, though the fact that the Turbo doesn't have an upgrade by now really means that people who decided these things just don't think it's a priority, for whatever reason.

For the most part, the phone runs fine on KitKat, so at least there's that. And there are no big security bugs that this 4.4.4 build is vulnerable to. However, it really could have been, and should have been, updated by now. This phone's hardware is pretty close to the Nexus 6, so hardware drivers have existed for a long time. Perhaps the Droid specific software features (Zap, the command center widget) are posing issues, but I kind of doubt it, and I really doubt that there is some obscure hardware in the Turbo that doesn't have a lollipop ready driver by now.

By this time in the KitKat cycle, not only did the 2013 Droids already have KitKat, for months, but the 18+ month old 2012 Droids were about ready to start a soak test (May 6 last year.) This one is just being handled terribly, and there is plenty of blame for it to go around (Motorola, Verizon and Google).

Maybe for you kit kat runs fine but for a lot of people it seems that AC 1.0 is a flop and to many when AC 1.0 doesn't function as its supposed to they lose out on simultaneous voice and data. Maybe yours functions as you want but part time voice and data is a step back for me. WiFi is also not as consistent as my previous RAZR Maxx HD. I'm stuck with KK and have a device on par with the one I used in the 1990's...Doesn't make me a happy camper.

 

[vzwuser76]

Maybe for you kit kat runs fine but for a lot of people it seems that AC 1.0 is a flop and to many when AC 1.0 doesn't function as its supposed to they lose out on simultaneous voice and data. Maybe yours functions as you want but part time voice and data is a step back for me. WiFi is also not as consistent as my previous RAZR Maxx HD. I'm stuck with KK and have a device on par with the one I used in the 1990's...Doesn't make me a happy camper.

Verizon didn't have simultaneous voice and data until they released LTE phones in 2011, a good decade after the 90s. GSM carriers like T-Mobile and AT&T had it, and they also have no issues with simultaneous voice and data currently, so maybe you should switch to one of them.

 

[Rob_B]

My saying that it's like a 1990's phone is referencing dropped calls. And to correct you, LTE was not needed by verizon to have simultaneous voice and data . Just separate antennas and radios because CDMA couldn't handle it like GSM phones.

 

[doogald]

Maybe for you kit kat runs fine but for a lot of people it seems that AC 1.0 is a flop and to many when AC 1.0 doesn't function as its supposed to they lose out on simultaneous voice and data. Maybe yours functions as you want but part time voice and data is a step back for me. WiFi is also not as consistent as my previous RAZR Maxx HD. I'm stuck with KK and have a device on par with the one I used in the 1990's...Doesn't make me a happy camper.

Those don't have anything to do with KitKat. An upgrade to Lollipop will not improve the range of the WiFi radio and until Verizon updates VoLTE to do WiFi or CDMA handoff at the very least, and improves the LTE coverage area, that's not going to get any better, either. I get that it's important to you. You bought the wrong phone for what you need. But, we've had this discussion before, haven't we?

I definitely don't want to soft-pedal your issue with VoLTE, but it's not going to be fixed just with Lollipop (unless Verizon happens to coincidentally improve VoLTE at the same time.)

 

[doogald]

My saying that it's like a 1990's phone is referencing dropped calls. And to correct you, LTE was not needed by verizon to have simultaneous voice and data . Just separate antennas and radios because CDMA couldn't handle it like GSM phones.

CDMA/EVDO required an upgrade to SVDO to do simultaneous voice and data, and Verizon's CDMA network did not support SVDO until 2011, either. SVDO was first announced in 2009 but it took until 2011 to be implemented.

See SVDO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia