Droid Turbo: Lollipop software update?

[Almeuit]

Since I'm not a lawyer I couldn't honestly tell you all the ways a viable class action could be brought against a company for something like this. I was just pointing out a very close example when Ry questioned this being possible.

I am not a lawyer either but .. If they promise to get sales and do not deliver that is one thing .. But just because L is released and they said they're working on it (and said a date they wanted to release) is another thing. Especially since they did this months after going on sale so they weren't doing it to push people to buy the phone by making a false promise.

Either way. The thread is about the updates and when they could possibly come. As Motorola said they're working on it -- to bring in something like a class action suite just because they missed the date they wanted is jumping way into left field imo.

 

[doogald]

I'm still confused why people who don't care about an update to lollipop and are "happy with kitKat" still feel a need to spend a lot of their time on a thread about when (or if) an update is coming out only to make sure they let everyone know over and over again how much they don't care or need the update.

I never said that I was happy that the update is not out. What I said is that the phone is running fine on KitKat - which it is - so excoriating Verizon's software engineers (really Motorola's, as I pointed out) for making the phone run so long with a delayed software update is a exaggerating the issue by a great bit. The phone runs fine for almost everybody now, and there is no guarantee that it will be any better on Lollipop.

Even more interesting is how they don't understand when your behind two major updates (now that M is almost out) a lot of their apps will eventually start using the newer API's and they will either break or be left behind.

M is not almost out. More than likely it is four months away, based on past history (Google releases new Android updates in October/November every year.) There is no released code for Android M - Google has created binary downloads for specific Nexus devices only for developers to pre-test their apps only. OEMs do not yet have the code in order to develop updates for their existing phones. Until the code is released to AOSP Motorola literally cannot do anything to develop Android M for the Turbo or for any other phone. Period.

Can you name a single application out now that *requires* Lollipop level APIs in order to run? (There used to be one that I knew of - Talon Plus - but the developer still maintained the older Talon version, and then he released an updated that works on KitKat.)

Again, I'm not here to defend Motorola/Verizon - I think this delay is unbelievable - but I think that the reaction is very overblown.

 

[doogald]

The z3v was definitely Sony's flagship for Verizon.

The Sony Z3 is a flagship. The Z3v is a minor variant and *not* a flagship.

 

[Davidoo]

Been pretty transparent to me.

But "we're still working on it" is a good enough update for me.

Historically, dates are rarely given and I understand that. Not sure why that is hard for others to grasp.

Historically, Motorola has updated the DROID line after their own Moto line. I understand that Motorola has two generations of Moto X, G, and E that appear to be ahead of the DROID TURBO. The DROID MINI, DROID ULTRA, and DROID MAXX probably won't get Lollipop until M becomes a dessert.

A variant of the second gen Moto X was one of the first non-Nexus devices to get Lollipop. ..and that was a disaster. Unlike when a variant of the first gen Moto X was one of the first non-Nexus devices to get KitKat.

Motorola was pretty open about bugs and issues with the initial Lollipop update and was clear when they made the decision to halt 5.0 and use 5.1 instead. Lollipop 5.1 was official in March 2015.

I mean, there really are only two routes they go. They finish their work on the update and roll it out or they stop and announce that they can't do Lollipop. Until one of those two things happen, there is no news.

I have to respectfully disagree with you on this, Ry. I see no transparency here at all. And I don't consider "we're working on it" or "soon" to be valid updates and are in fact a slap in the face to customers. I guess I also don't grasp why there are no timetables or dates given for updates? Why not? Do they really have no idea?

I'm repeating what I've said before, but I know of no other business that can give these vague answers and have people with products that don't work as intended and they basically just tell you it's too bad, we'll fix it "soon."

I would just say that although we were never "promised" an update by a certain date, the Turbo was clearly sold proudly and boldly stating in all the advertising that it was upgradeable to lollipop. To those of you who think that waiting for said update going on 9 months now is reasonable, with no real communications as to when it will be updated, I submit that you have no idea what good customer service looks like.

 

[wckesq]

Can you name a single application out now that *requires* Lollipop level APIs in order to run? (There used to be one that I knew of - Talon Plus - but the developer still maintained the older Talon version, and then he released an updated that works on KitKat.)

I believe Android Auto requires. I don't use it though. I have a problem with WIFI and always have. I can work through it, but it costs me extra in data charges. Hoping LP fixes.

 

[deesugar]

to bring in something like a class action suite just because they missed the date they wanted is jumping way into left field imo.

I think at a certain point you have ask yourself if it's ever going to come out, it's a matter of if, not when. The CLIQ XT customers had to come to that realization. As I said it's best for a company to say very little and string customers along for as long as possible so they move on. It becomes less of a news story (bad publicity) when it's about an old phone that they don't sell anymore. And legally it's less costly to deal with.

 

[camachinist]

Been pretty transparent to me.

But "we're still working on it" is a good enough update for me.

Historically, dates are rarely given and I understand that. Not sure why that is hard for others to grasp.

Heh, customers in my industry (oil and gas and agriculture) would laugh at such transparency, or lack thereof. Where is the machine, what is the status of its build and we need imaging of that, and documents, today. Nothing is as nebulous as the young bucks working in the software industry where everything is electrons and mortals don't need to know. Lollipop was talked about with the Turbo, way back to before it was released in October 2014, and numerous apparent industry insiders propped it up, to the extent that many wondered why the Turbo had capacitive buttons since L didn't require them.

When in doubt, follow the money. It rarely lies.

 

[Ry]

I have to respectfully disagree with you on this, Ry. I see no transparency here at all. And I don't consider "we're working on it" or "soon" to be valid updates and are in fact a slap in the face to customers. I guess I also don't grasp why there are no timetables or dates given for updates? Why not? Do they really have no idea?

If there is no update, what should they say?

They've never given dates. We've seen it bite HTC and OnePlus in recent memory.

I'm repeating what I've said before, but I know of no other business that can give these vague answers and have people with products that don't work as intended and they basically just tell you it's too bad, we'll fix it "soon."

By saying fix, you're implying that there is something broken. For the most part, everyone who doesn't care about updates seems generally happy with KitKat.

I would just say that although we were never "promised" an update by a certain date, the Turbo was clearly sold proudly and boldly stating in all the advertising that it was upgradeable to lollipop. To those of you who think that waiting for said update going on 9 months now is reasonable, with no real communications as to when it will be updated, I submit that you have no idea what good customer service looks like.

With all due respect, it seems like you have no idea on how Android OS upgrades and carrier test labs work.

From what I learned with the DROID RAZR/DROID Bionic updates and Verizon, when a device gets into the carrier labs, one thing going wrong can and will reset testing. The carrier will halt testing without testing anything else and the build goes back to the OEM. Very inefficient.

 

[Ry]

Heh, customers in my industry (oil and gas and agriculture) would laugh at such transparency, or lack thereof. Where is the machine, what is the status of its build and we need imaging of that, and documents, today. Nothing is as nebulous as the young bucks working in the software industry where everything is electrons and mortals don't need to know. Lollipop was talked about with the Turbo, way back to before it was released in October 2014, and numerous apparent industry insiders propped it up, to the extent that many wondered why the Turbo had capacitive buttons since L didn't require them.

When in doubt, follow the money. It rarely lies.

Those who need to know, know.

 

[doogald]

I'm repeating what I've said before, but I know of no other business that can give these vague answers and have people with products that don't work as intended and they basically just tell you it's too bad, we'll fix it "soon."

What isn't working as intended on the Turbo?

For a business that says too bad, we'll fix it soon, I give you the automobile industry. How many cars are driving around right now with faulty airbags? We don't even know the answer to that question. When will they be patched? (And in this case we are talking about a problem that could kill you or one of your passengers. The same thing goes for the ignition switch issue that GM cars had - that GM knew about, and did nothing about until it created a lot of poor publicity, end even approved the switches that they knew were faulty for use in new cars. The Droid Turbo's KitKat build? It will not kill you, or injure you, or do anything other than work as, yes, intended.)

Verizon and Motorola have no obligation at all to update the software on the Turbo so long as it operates in a way that meet FCC regulations. It's really rather wonderful that these companies (in this case, Motorola) spend so much time and money on devices for which they will receive no future revenue at all.

 

[tdizzel]

The Sony Z3 is a flagship. The Z3v is a minor variant and *not* a flagship.

So Sony and Verizon hold a big event. In New York. Invite all sorts of tech and media types. The event was specifically to announce and launch the z3v for Verizon, but it's not a flagship? Riiiiiiight. If that's the case, then there really are no flagships by any OEMs.

 

[doogald]

So Sony and Verizon hold a big event. In New York. Invite all sorts of tech and media types. The event was specifically to announce and launch the z3v for Verizon, but it's not a flagship? Riiiiiiight. If that's the case, then there really are no flagships by any OEMs.

The Samsung Galaxy S6/S6 Edge and Note 4 are samsung's current flagships. The HTC One M9 is a flagship. The LG G4 is a flagship, and the G Flex 2 *might* be (I'd argue that it's not). The Moto X is a flagship. The Sony Experia Z3 is a flagship (I believe it's about to be superceded by the Z4). The iPhone 6 and 6 Plus are flagships.

Those are flagships. Making a special phone for one carrier is not a flagship. OEMs have flagships, carriers do not.

Here is Sony's Android device page. Smartphones: Compare and review unlocked and Android Xperia smartphone mobile phone technology - Sony US

You see your flagship there?

 

[Almeuit]

I think at a certain point you have ask yourself if it's ever going to come out, it's a matter of if, not when. The CLIQ XT customers had to come to that realization. As I said it's best for a company to say very little and string customers along for as long as possible so they move on. It becomes less of a news story (bad publicity) when it's about an old phone that they don't sell anymore. And legally it's less costly to deal with.

That is your opinion and you're entitled to it -- legally though they didn't do a bait and switch (a.k.a promising Lollipop) to users to get them to buy the Turbo. They were simply trying to let everyone know they're working on it .. Sadly .. Like with any other software there were some bugs that caused some delay.

 

[tdizzel]

The Samsung Galaxy S6/S6 Edge and Note 4 are samsung's current flagships. The HTC One M9 is a flagship. The LG G4 is a flagship, and the G Flex 2 *might* be (I'd argue that it's not). The Moto X is a flagship. The Sony Experia Z3 is a flagship (I believe it's about to be superceded by the Z4). The iPhone 6 and 6 Plus are flagships.

Those are flagships. Making a special phone for one carrier is not a flagship. OEMs have flagships, carriers do not.

Here is Sony's Android device page. Smartphones: Compare and review unlocked and Android Xperia smartphone mobile phone technology - Sony US

You see your flagship there?

Link appears to be broken.
You can't possibly believe OEMs don't make carrier specific Flagships. If you do you must have only been following Android for about 2 weeks. They've been doing it since forever. My first android phone was the Motorola Droid which was a flagship that was specifically made for Verizon. That has continued on to the Droid Turbo, with dozens of phones by numerous OEMs made specifically for a single carrier in between. It's not done as much now, but it's definitely still done. To say otherwise is just wrong. the Z3v is the Flagship phone that Sony made for Verizon.
Now if they had released the regular Z3 on Verizon and then released a lower spec'd Z3v, then I'd agree that it's not a flagship. But that's not the case. It absolutely is a Flagship by most accounts and definitions.

And since we're on Android Central debating this:

This week's sidebar poll: Best Android flagship — Note 4 or Droid Turbo? | Android Central

Referring to the Droid Turbo, which is a special phone for one carrier, as a flagship.

 

[Aquila]

This thread is pretty awesome - it has gone 75 pages for 100% of posts to not answer the question - since no one that is not at the table with Verizon and Motorola can possibly know what the stakeholders probably still don't know today. They could make an educated guess; but all that anyone else can say is, "no information has been released save that they are working hard at it and trying to overcome some issues". One has to admire the ardor with which this statement has been folded.

 

[vzwuser76]

First, anything said about the Turbo before release is not official, it was rumor. Nothing was official until the day of release. Around the time of release, they mentioned that it would be upgradeable to LP. By itself the only way anyone could even think of suing is if the Turbo gets EOLed before it sees LP. With no specific date given, they only have to get the update out before support is ended to meet their statement.

I want LP as well, though for me it's curiosity to see how far off of AOSP the Turbo's build will be. I understand that some are having issues on KK, but those affected appear to be random and in the minority. My device works fine the way it is, and I know some here are saying that waiting longer won't ensure a more stable build. That is not necessarily true. A rushed update will have more issues than one that they take their time on it, that's just common sense. Sure they may get lucky and rush an update and have a minimal amount of bugs, but luck runs out. What if they had pushed a build out earlier for either 5.0.2 or 5.1 because people were screaming for it and then it ended up causing a support nightmare? Again I want the update as well, maybe not as much as some of you, but since there is apparently a rather serious issue so far, I would prefer they concentrate on fixing the issue rather than pushing the update so they can say they did and screwing up my device.

Regardless, what is a lawsuit going to get you? You want money, a new device, both? History has shown that any winnings from such a suit will be negligible, look at Apple's solution for their grip of death scandal. They sent out rubber bumpers that most likely cost them less than a dollar each, and that's from the wealthiest company on the planet. In the majority of these suits, the compensation awarded to the plaintiffs ends up being less than what they put into it. You would also have to show that either you were harmed by their actions or that they willfully misled you. If they didn't think they were going to be able to do what they said and did it anyway, they open themselves up to litigation, and they aren't going to risk that. I seriously can't see how people can't understand that it's possible that they didn't believe that they would have as much trouble as they have. There are plenty of times I went to repair something in my former job and it proved to be a much more involved process to resolve than I originally thought. When it happens, the only thing you can do is put your head down and keep plugging away at it until you resolve the issue, which is what they're doing now. And giving a timeframe for the fix when you have no earthly idea how long it will take is irresponsible. All it does is shut people up until the date arrives and then you have to explain why you couldn't fulfill your promise. How is that more professional than saying "we're working on it"? At least there you're not outright lying to the customers. Unless you can say with certainty how long it will take to fix the issue, it's better to say you don't know but that you are working on it. Otherwise you're just saying what they want to hear to get them off your backs when you know full well you aren't going to meet that deadline.

 

[vzwuser76]

When I started reading today's posts I started to think I ended up a few pages back. It seems like every few pages is just a copy and paste of the previous pages.

 

[Aquila]

When I started reading today's posts I started to think I ended up a few pages back. It seems like every few pages is just a copy and paste of the previous pages.

If folks aren't reading it all, that's likely to happen. At this length, it is a safe bet that very few are reading.

 

[Davidoo]

If there is no update, what should they say?

They've never given dates. We've seen it bite HTC and OnePlus in recent memory.



By saying fix, you're implying that there is something broken. For the most part, everyone who doesn't care about updates seems generally happy with KitKat.



With all due respect, it seems like you have no idea on how Android OS upgrades and carrier test labs work.

From what I learned with the DROID RAZR/DROID Bionic updates and Verizon, when a device gets into the carrier labs, one thing going wrong can and will reset testing. The carrier will halt testing without testing anything else and the build goes back to the OEM. Very inefficient.

If there is no update they should just come clean and say they can't update it. I fail to understand why some of you think there is a problem with the company just telling the truth. Coming out with comments like David Schuster did on the 11th saying it is in the "lab" and going well tells the customer nothing! When a corporation tells you all is going well you should be worried.

Just because they never give dates doesn't mean it is right. And some do give dates. Microsoft is telling the world that they are putting out a new OS free to download on July 29th that will run on perhaps billions of computers.

Also, there are a lot of people on this forum that need a "fix" because their AC doesn't work, WiFi has connection and holding a connection problems, calls that don't make a ringing sound while waiting for the other party to answer, which according to the release notes published for 5.1 on another moto device may get fixed by the update. Is it OK for people to pay full price for things they could fix just because they simply haven't gotten around to it yet and how dare you ask when it will get fixed?

It is an accurate statement that I don't know how their test labs work. That statement seems a bit arrogant. Is updating an OS on a smartphone is just so darn complicated and almost impossible to do that it really takes 9 months to do it, and how dare we even ask questions about it because us non-code writing idiots couldn't possibly understand? We all have our opinions and I respect yours. I'm still going with the theory that they can't update it due to some flaw, and they are just not going to tell us and keep stringing everyone along so eventually people give up and move on to something else.

 

[Davidoo]

Those who need to know, know.

Wouldn't customers who are paying the bills need to know? Why is it such a secret? It is called customer service. I can tell you have never worked anywhere where you actually had to deal with customers directly and meet goals and deadlines.