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

[LineKill]

Only for the SM-G935U. Not yet available for the SM-G930, as far as anyone can tell.

And current guestimates put the OSA out another 3 - 5 days.

OK, thanks for letting me know. I assumed they would both be released at the same timeツ

 

[Ca_lvn]

I'm really not interested in upgrading the ios just keeping security current, I had a moto g5 unlocked running N from the factory and it had hickups

 

[davebwi]

Samsung lied to me again people!!! Still no Security updates As promised!.and no Nougat either for my SM-930U.
THANKS FOR NOTHING SAMSUNG!!@!

 

[keyslapper]

I hate to say it, but I'm starting to think the Samsung PMs couldn't find their own *** with both hands, a map, and a flashlight. It's like buying a device built by a competent multinational electronics corporation with all the best tech, but finding the support is handled by the Keystone Cops.

 

[webzo2000]

Its all a matter of $ and cents.... The number of people that purchased a U version is likely minuscule compared to the people that purchased via the carriers. So, its going to be last priority for Samsung to work on it, regardless of how much we scream here...

 

[Ry]

Its all a matter of $ and cents.... The number of people that purchased a U version is likely minuscule compared to the people that purchased via the carriers. So, its going to be last priority for Samsung to work on it, regardless of how much we scream here...

This.

 

[Ry]

Of course. I've never been part of a project with a schedule like this though. My group once took a 6 month dev cycle to add a very long list of features to a 4 million line code base. That list of features were broken into 3 categories: Must have; Should have; and Gee that would be nice.

We removed almost 200,000 lines of obsolete code, added around 160,000 lines of new code, and touched / modified around 400,000 lines of code. We completed both the "Must" and "Should" lists of features, and implemented nearly 80% of the "Gee that would be nice" list. All done by the focus date, which was 2 weeks earlier than the commit date.

Our QA cycle finished on time with every single metric at least 30% better than that required for release. Since they had an additional 2 weeks to work, confidence on this release was higher than most.

So yeah, things can change. When they're well planned and committed to, and the team behind every phase of the project is competent, they usually change for the better.

Now, I think I'm remembering all those numbers right, but this was 8 years ago. Since then our company has become considerably deeper in it's management structure, and not a single release cycle has gone quite so smooth or been quite so effective, but we make our deadlines. Every time. It's not easy, and the stuff we deal with is exceedingly complex. But we do make commitments on our dev cycles, and we keep them. When a security issue is discovered, we build a patch and put it out for customers that need it. Any time a customer asks for an issue (regardless of whether it's security related) to be fixed for a supported version (2 years from release date, not 1), they usually get it within a week, and that's if we haven't already built the patch for that issue.

It seems like you're arguing that they don't have to meet a deadline because they never gave or committed to one. I'm arguing that with security issues, that's irrelevant. If our customers were made to wait 3 months for security fixes they had any reasonable expectation of getting, heads would roll. I can promise you that.

And as for having a plan against them, ALL our products have the same plan against them. If there's an issue, we fix it, regardless of what build of our product you have. We have made a number of small-release builds that made up a very small part of our install base, and we've never treated them like third-class citizens in our customer base.

You know what - that's exactly my argument. What published deadline has Samsung Mobile missed? With KNOX, with Google Play Services - the Android security patches aren't the only story. Plus, I understand that unless the phone is from Google or BlackBerry, expectations for any sort of updates are low. That's the reality. Is it right? I don't think so. But unless we all buy Google and BlackBerry and tell everyone else we're not buying your phones because they're not keeping up with monthly security, nothing is going to change.

Is price not important? Funny, I always thought it was. I would actually like to understand why it's not relevant. Personally, I would have a very different set of expectations from something I paid $250 for than for something I paid $750 for, wouldn't you? Keep in mind, the price paid for this phone is more than a week's pay for many of the people that own it. I don't set my expectations of anything I buy in complete absence of price consideration.

If the $250 phone promised updates with an actual schedule and didn't deliver, I'd be upset. If a $750 didn't promise updates with an actual schedule, then shame on me for expecting something they never promised.

That's how we all wound up here

Unfortunately, we all already bought the phone, and our requests for updates, information, and pretty much anything resembling a schedule has been met with deflection, misleading promises, and vague statements that given their track record, we can only assume mean what any normal person would think they mean.

Just to be clear, my first unlocked phone was the Galaxy Nexus. I eventually wound up with an S5, though that wasn't unlocked. The contrast between the two cemented my preference for unlocked devices - because the unlocked one was getting updates much more regularly than the locked one. Just as an aside, both devices were on the Verizon network. I remember the Verizon forums going nuts because everyone else with the S5 had the latest security fixes and OS updates months before Verizon customers. Another case where paying top dollar didn't get you top tier service - especially not now that T-Mo and Sprint have built out their networks. So I did as you are recommending here, and I spoke with my wallet. I moved to another carrier (www.ting.com). My service is every bit as good as it was with Verizon (better when I'm at my desk at work) and I'm saving more than $100 every month.

This whole update problem has shown me one thing: I was attributing the excellent experience I had with the GNexus jointly to Google and Samsung, and the annoyance I had with the S5 primarily to Verizon. That wasn't right. Samsung makes great hardware, but their software game is still crap. Verizon has recently shown it can light a fire under it's process too. So I'm going to keep on griping until either they get their $#!t together, or I move on to another phone. I've had this one 9 months now, and I usually get almost 2 years out of them. I think that's plenty of time for them to get their feet under them. And next time yes, I'm going to buy a Google phone (never cared for Blackberry). Maybe if Samsung get their act together between now and then, I'll bother watching them over the next couple years and consider them again.

Thing is, I can quietly just decide to take my money elsewhere next time, and hope Samsung gets it (which they wont), or I can make sure my reasons for doing so are plastered wherever it's appropriate, so my opinion has more of an impact, and Samsung is far more likely to understand why I'm taking my money elsewhere.

Monthly security updates weren't a thing until August 2015. Before then, they were part of OS updates.

 

[keyslapper]

You know what - that's exactly my argument. What published deadline has Samsung Mobile missed?

How about the one on their own security website, already published in this thread? That's a promise for monthly updates to the Samsung Galaxy S7. The only caveat being that the support cycle can end when they want to end it, but they have categorically denied this is the case. Then they admit they had this phone on a quarterly cadence for security updates, but promised to put it back on the monthly cadence. So far, it looks like they still haven't done that.
They announced the Nougat release for the S7 in NOVEMBER, but here it is in May and we still haven't got it on the 930U. They have repeatedly promised this update "by the end of the week" or "in the next couple weeks" or some similar just-around-the-corner sounding timeline.
They appear to have put the update for the 935U out, but only via SmartSwitch, and still nothing for the 930U, and they claim this is because they are waiting for approval from a single major carrier - WTF? Why does this matter if all the carriers already have it rolled out for their own branded devices? The whole point of an unlocked phone is that it's free of carrier entanglements, and I'm not even a customer of any of the major carriers.

If the $250 phone promised updates with an actual schedule and didn't deliver, I'd be upset. If a $750 didn't promise updates with an actual schedule, then shame on me for expecting something they never promised.

What about when the $750 phone promises security updates but keeps you hanging for months?

Monthly security updates weren't a thing until August 2015. Before then, they were part of OS updates.

So what? I didn't buy this phone until a year after that, and I never worried about it on the phones that didn't promise it. The Samsung site clearly says that the S7 is on a monthly security update cadence. They are not honoring that promise. Hence the conflict.

Ry, I'm really curious what kind of moderator sounds more like a troll than a moderator. You ask stupid questions like "Are you DOD?" Who cares if I'm DOD or just some burger flipping teenager. Do I not have the same right to security if that's what I am trying to purchase and what's been promised? It's a stupid question that shouldn't even be asked, least of all by a moderator.

I'm sorry we're disagreeing so much, but your comments seem carefully crafted to belittle the people upset about this, and to tell everyone that they're wrong in their interpretation of statements and emails that pretty much every other person outside Samsung appears to interpret the exact same way.

You can try to tell me they never promised anything, and that the S7 owners have had unrealistic expectations from day 1, but I don't believe that for a second. Their own site has been very clear on it from day 1 - and still is, and the emails they've sent out over the last 5 months that have been posted online confirm it. They're stringing us along because they don't care about a small drop in their user base.

 

[Ry]

How about the one on their own security website, already published in this thread? That's a promise for monthly updates to the Samsung Galaxy S7. The only caveat being that the support cycle can end when they want to end it, but they have categorically denied this is the case. Then they admit they had this phone on a quarterly cadence for security updates, but promised to put it back on the monthly cadence. So far, it looks like they still haven't done that.

What patch level is the 930U on now?

I think the random admission that it's been "quarterly" for the unlocked models plus the fine print that says support can change covers Samsung enough. And as other posters have pointed out, the carrier models are likely more important just because of volume alone. But again, this is just what I think.

They announced the Nougat release for the S7 in NOVEMBER, but here it is in May and we still haven't got it on the 930U. They have repeatedly promised this update "by the end of the week" or "in the next couple weeks" or some similar just-around-the-corner sounding timeline.
They appear to have put the update for the 935U out, but only via SmartSwitch, and still nothing for the 930U, and they claim this is because they are waiting for approval from a single major carrier - WTF? Why does this matter if all the carriers already have it rolled out for their own branded devices? The whole point of an unlocked phone is that it's free of carrier entanglements, and I'm not even a customer of any of the major carriers.

I don't think they announced Nougat for all models but I see your point. Plus it's usually a roll-out to the different SKUs. It sucks that apparently the 930U is last on the list.

Also, I know that carriers can be and are still involved in the update process because Motorola has done so in the past.

What about when the $750 phone promises security updates but keeps you hanging for months?

OK. You got me there. But personally, if it bothered me that much, I'd switch and not take the abuse.

So what? I didn't buy this phone until a year after that, and I never worried about it on the phones that didn't promise it. The Samsung site clearly says that the S7 is on a monthly security update cadence. They are not honoring that promise. Hence the conflict.

My only point there was that the Galaxy Nexus wasn't around for monthly security patches so bringing it up is sort of irrelevant. Updates were different back then. But then again it's still the same.

Ry, I'm really curious what kind of moderator sounds more like a troll than a moderator. You ask stupid questions like "Are you DOD?" Who cares if I'm DOD or just some burger flipping teenager. Do I not have the same right to security if that's what I am trying to purchase and what's been promised? It's a stupid question that shouldn't even be asked, least of all by a moderator.

I'm sorry we're disagreeing so much, but your comments seem carefully crafted to belittle the people upset about this, and to tell everyone that they're wrong in their interpretation of statements and emails that pretty much every other person outside Samsung appears to interpret the exact same way.

You can try to tell me they never promised anything, and that the S7 owners have had unrealistic expectations from day 1, but I don't believe that for a second. Their own site has been very clear on it from day 1 - and still is, and the emails they've sent out over the last 5 months that have been posted online confirm it. They're stringing us along because they don't care about a small drop in their user base.

Here's more background regarding the "stupid" DoD question. I work for a healthcare software and hardware company. Patient data. HIPPA. That data needs to be secure. But from my company's IT, I'm not seeing bulletins that tell me not to use an Android device because it's security patch level isn't current enough. With how much my company requires us to lock down our devices, all the hacking and phishing alert notices they spam our email with, I'm wondering why my company isn't being as strict as other employers. I want to compare my company with others and figure out if our security is lacking here.

I would still only trust Google and BlackBerry to keep an Android device current with security no matter what was or was not promised.

And that said, I'm not calling any of your concern stupid.

Raise hell about it. Spam all of Samsung social media accounts with this concern. Tweet it out to all the Android and tech sites. For me, this is the unfortunate status quo of updates with Android. If we keep buying this way, OEMs will keep doing this to us.

If you have any concerns with my comments and opinions, which are mine and mine alone - my opinions don't represent Android Central, the moderation team, or any other volunteer here - feel free to reach out to Almeuit, the Moderation Team Leader.

 

[keyslapper]

What patch level is the 930U on now?

March 1 security update.

I think the random admission that it's been "quarterly" for the unlocked models plus the fine print that says support can change covers Samsung enough. And as other posters have pointed out, the carrier models are likely more important just because of volume alone. But again, this is just what I think.

That "random admission" was never posted on a Samsung site anywhere. It's from an email sent by Samsung Mobile Security to one pissed off owner who then posted it online. The moderator at the Samsung Community forum was as surprised as anyone else that this one flavor of that phone would be on a different update cycle. Bear in mind that all the carrier branded S7 models were getting monthly security updates - September, October, November, December, January, February, etc. Since I bought mine in early August, the 930U got security updates in December and March.
The fine print you're talking about clearly points out that the S7 is on a monthly cadence, along with several other top tier Samsung phones. It also points out that several of the second tier phones are on a quarterly cadence. These lists clearly show that a phone is in one or the other, and the S7 is clearly in the monthly cadence list. And the caveat does not say the support can change, it says it can end without notice, which as I've explained, Samsung has categorically denied is happening.
So no, it does not cover them, and like I've said, you're the only person I've seen claim it does.

I don't think they announced Nougat for all models but I see your point. Plus it's usually a roll-out to the different SKUs. It sucks that apparently the 930U is last on the list.

I don't have the URLs handy, but yes one of the announcements I saw in December specifically included the unlocked variants of the S7 and S7 Edge. The other clearly said "all variants.

My only point there was that the Galaxy Nexus wasn't around for monthly security patches so bringing it up is sort of irrelevant. Updates were different back then. But then again it's still the same.

Not really irrelevant. Like I said, my experience with the Nexus was exactly what I expected - better, even. My mistake was in attributing any of that positive experience (outside the quality of the hardware) to Samsung.

Here's more background regarding the "stupid" DoD question. I work for a healthcare software and hardware company. Patient data. HIPPA. That data needs to be secure. But from my company's IT, I'm not seeing bulletins that tell me not to use an Android device because it's security patch level isn't current enough. With how much my company requires us to lock down our devices, all the hacking and phishing alert notices they spam our email with, I'm wondering why my company isn't being as strict as other employers. I want to compare my company with others and figure out if our security is lacking here.

That adds some context to your question that would have made it seem a little less like ridicule. As for why your company has no problem with it, I have to wonder if they're even looking at the 930U or 935U, or if they're only looking at the carrier variants. Remember, the carrier flavors have been getting monthly security updates, the unlocked variants have been running a good 3 months behind.
Regardless, anyone who is serious about security but still needs a phone should absolutely prefer DoD level security to anything else. You don't have to be DoD to have your life ruined because someone grabbed your CC off your phone just strolling past you in the parking lot. Everyone says just use Knox, but that's not enough if your phone has security flaws. You can encrypt the phone, but with some flaws, it's like removing the combination mechanism on the safe because the door is always open.

I would still only trust Google and BlackBerry to keep an Android device current with security no matter what was or was not promised.

Yeah, I agree with you there. Especially now. Like I said, I've been attributing too much of my positive experience with the Nexus to Samsung. I now know that was a mistake. And I do plan to buy the Pixel at my first opportunity, but I cannot justify that expenditure so soon after buying this one. It's certainly getting easier, since at first I kept believing the promises Samsung was throwing around, so I figured it would all get straightened out eventually. Now I don't believe anything they say regarding these updates. I'll believe what I see and nothing more.

And that said, I'm not calling any of your concern stupid.

Understood. Like I said above, some of your comments make a bit more sense with context

Raise hell about it. Spam all of Samsung social media accounts with this concern. Tweet it out to all the Android and tech sites. For me, this is the unfortunate status quo of updates with Android. If we keep buying this way, OEMs will keep doing this to us.

That's what got this whole thread started. There are similar threads on a lot of other sites including the Samsung Community forums, Sammobile, and I know a lot of the same folks are posting comments every time an article is published that mentions an unlocked S8. Several of us have even left scathing reviews directed at support for the S7 with Amazon, Best Buy, and even Walmart. I guess someone figured that was kinda within the AC forum wheelhouse. If that's not within the acceptable use of the AC forums, I apologize and won't be back to read or comment on this particular issue.

If you have any concerns with my comments and opinions, which are mine and mine alone - my opinions don't represent Android Central, the moderation team, or any other volunteer here - feel free to reach out to Almeuit, the Moderation Team Leader.

No, we both know there's no need for that. I know it didn't seem like I meant it before, but I am sorry we've been disagreeing about this. I know you have a whole life and set of experiences that will affect your perspective in perfectly legitimate ways that I have no way of knowing based on internet forum posts. Thing is, so have I, and this issue alone has been maddening enough. The idea that my perspective isn't perfectly obvious can be tough, so I'm having a hard time understanding why the Samsung security coverage policy doesn't mean the same thing to you as it does me. I promise I tried to read it the way you appeared to. I just didn't see it. So for my part, I'll just agree to disagree on that point.

Cheers

 

[Kjthomas0724]

Your not missing anything. I have had nothing but connection issues since the update.

 

[keyslapper]

Your not missing anything. I have had nothing but connection issues since the update.

I'm having connection issues now. Since the March update, WiFi, cell data and voice drop off. I get more surprise voicemail notifications when the phone never rang - in spite of a full signal, than I do actual rings. WiFi calls haven't worked since then either.
Most (not quite all) other accounts I've seen suggest the update is an improvement. I've seen a few folks say their battery life went to hell, while pretty much every one else says it's improved.

 

[Kjthomas0724]

I'm having connection issues now. Since the March update, WiFi, cell data and voice drop off. I get more surprise voicemail notifications when the phone never rang - in spite of a full signal, than I do actual rings. WiFi calls haven't worked since then either.
Most (not quite all) other accounts I've seen suggest the update is an improvement. I've seen a few folks say their battery life went to hell, while pretty much every one else says it's improved.

I got the march security update and nougat within a couple days of each other so I guess it's possible the security patch is what did it.

 

[keyslapper]

I got the march security update and nougat within a couple days of each other so I guess it's possible the security patch is what did it.

Well, you know what they say, the most secure device is one that isn't connected to anything

Stupid Samsung phones.

 

[Kjthomas0724]

Well, you know what they say, the most secure device is one that isn't connected to anything

Stupid Samsung phones.

I'm getting annoyed enough that I am seriously thinking about switching to an iPhone. I love my s7 but it just seems like the updates just mess things up and it's frustrating *** hell.

 

[Ca_lvn]

So I don't care about upgrading to N but I do want security updates how concerned should we be or is this just getting overhyped my phone works perfectly now and my past experience with ios upgrades is there's always some issues

 

[LineKill]

Nougat has finally been released for the 930U via OTA.

 

[Ca_lvn]

1226,70mb update its here

 

[keyslapper]

Funny thing, this doesn't appear to have been a "roll out" release. I have seen quite a lot of people saying they got the OTA on their 930U this morning, but not a single person reporting they can't get it yet.
I'm not sure how to interpret this, but the idea that rollouts are just manufacturers being misers with bandwidth would be easy to argue - Google puts the factory image up for download if you don't want to wait, and Apple sends their updates out to any and all phones they intend to get it all in one go.

 

[Ca_lvn]

Well I said I wasn't going to upgrade, but after verification that it was there it wouldn't clear a update notification, so I did a boot restart and cleared system catch first, so far all seems well.

Edit a little disappointing still on April security update and N7. 0 not 7.01 install