Updates like Apple

[chanchan05]

My device is WiFi-only, no carrier interaction should mean FASTER updates. There is a Verizon version, I'm not sure that's been updated since I don't see a firmware version for it on sammobile.com

Yes, but I am working on the statement by the Samsung rep that all their devices in the US are updated from carrier servers, even unlocked ones that should have no carrier interaction. So on that note, even if your device is wifi only, the update will come from a carrier server and will only be available to you once the carrier gets around to hosting it. Which makes it not a priority for the carrier to host it.

 

[Note8uzer]

95% of consumers could care less about updates. Most don't even know updates are coming.

And you know this how?

 

[Ry]

My device is WiFi-only, no carrier interaction should mean FASTER updates. There is a Verizon version, I'm not sure that's been updated since I don't see a firmware version for it on sammobile.com

"Should"

But it depends if Samsung first even does it and second if they'd do it before their Verizon model.

 

[Ry]

And you know this how?

Throwing out a number is just throwing out a number. But the biggest piece of evidence we have is

Google gets updated first.

If people cared about updates in a significant way, we'd see people buying Google's devices in meaningful numbers.

But they don't.

 

[Almeuit]

The sheep analogy...
Again, I would venture to guess that a very high majority of Samsung device owners are even aware of os updates or security patches.

I had the first Android device <T-Mobile G1> and quite a few since. There frequency of updates never factored into how I spent my money. Matter of fact, I prefer the update schedule Samsung had adopted. It makes for a stable release. Also that fact that Samsung usually implements a lot of the newer features into its os before the lastest version of Android is released tends to hold me over.

Oreo will get here when it gets here and I can wait.

To be fair .. Just because a user isn't concerned about it doesn't mean the company gets a pass for it. A lot of Apple users don't care either but guess what? They get updates and have their security protected / patched.

 

[Dooki]

https://9to5google.com/2018/02/28/android-security-by-brand/

 

[anon(7901790)]

Why can’t all android devices get updated like all apple devices do? My iPhone is on beta which anyone can join and I always have the latest software. Even without beta all iPhones get updated all at once. My note 8 with its cost should be on Oreo by now! Why can’t android update like apple its very annoying.

https://forums.androidcentral.com/showthread.php?p=6153555

 

[djrakowski]

I would never want updates like apple! probably 10 updates already on iOS 11 and each one introduces more bugs. my iPad is ruined cause of all these updates.

And yet all of my iOS devices (I have 4 of them) have gotten better with each update. More importantly, they're all more secure than every Android device in my house - at best, they're at least one month behind on security and at worst, one just now received a fix for KRACK. That's why I'm using an iPhone as my primary and be doing so for the foreseeable future

 

[djrakowski]

Throwing out a number is just throwing out a number. But the biggest piece of evidence we have is

Google gets updated first.

If people cared about updates in a significant way, we'd see people buying Google's devices in meaningful numbers.

But they don't.

And this won't change until Google devices are available for purchase from every carrier in every country.

 

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

And this won't change until Google devices are available for purchase from every carrier in every country.

No it won't change unless people's attitudes about privacy and security change. Right now the market is speaking loud and clear: they don't value privacy or security enough to even find out who is actually the best vendor to go with, let alone to let it change their purchase decisions.

 

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

https://9to5google.com/2018/02/28/android-security-by-brand/

I like the comparison but it's missing some pretty important pieces of the puzzle. Looking at it just by OEM doesn't work, because Samsung doesn't treat all of its devices the same. As an example, the S9 is much more secure than the note 8 which is much more secure than the s7 which is vastly more secure than the j7.

 

[superniceapps]

My friend and I said the same thing. I am a former iPhone user, and that part of it is great. I've been waiting for Oreo update for a while now

 

[djrakowski]

No it won't change unless people's attitudes about privacy and security change. Right now the market is speaking loud and clear: they don't value privacy or security enough to even find out who is actually the best vendor to go with, let alone to let it change their purchase decisions.

That's also true.

 

[hallux]

I like the comparison but it's missing some pretty important pieces of the puzzle. Looking at it just by OEM doesn't work, because Samsung doesn't treat all of its devices the same. As an example, the S9 is much more secure than the note 8 which is much more secure than the s7 which is vastly more secure than the j7.

Just because a device is less expensive doesn't mean it should be less secure. Should the iPhone 8 be less secure because it's less expensive than the iPhone X? Just because a MacBook Air is less expensive than a MacBook Pro, does that mean Apple should not release security patches for it when the Pro gets them?

The bottom line is that Samsung's phones are all running Android, it shouldn't matter how much the device cost when it was new, Samsung owes it to the consumers to patch ALL devices faster and for longer than has been done. Several sites have called them on the carpet for it, but consumers seem to ignore this as much as Samsung does.

Samsung deserves to be scored based on ALL devices it sells, not just the flagship devices. Sure, the chart would be much different if Samsung HAD been scored on just flagship devices but the chart as it is shows the reality of things.

 

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

Just because a device is less expensive doesn't mean it should be less secure. Should the iPhone 8 be less secure because it's less expensive than the iPhone X? Just because a MacBook Air is less expensive than a MacBook Pro, does that mean Apple should not release security patches for it when the Pro gets them?

The bottom line is that Samsung's phones are all running Android, it shouldn't matter how much the device cost when it was new, Samsung owes it to the consumers to patch ALL devices faster and for longer than has been done. Several sites have called them on the carpet for it, but consumers seem to ignore this as much as Samsung does.

Samsung deserves to be scored based on ALL devices it sells, not just the flagship devices. Sure, the chart would be much different if Samsung HAD been scored on just flagship devices but the chart as it is shows the reality of things.

Oh no I agree with you fully but if they had judged all Samsung devices, the bottom line will be that there is no such thing as a secure Samsung device went looked at as aggregate.

 

[anon(7901790)]

Because only 32 Microsoft phones were ever sold.

Yeah... It was a lot more than that. I used to have a 928 and an Icon. Microsoft did screw up though.

 

[anon(7901790)]

Windows, like iOS, is still closed source. The modifications done by Acer, HP, etc, are done superficially, they aren't altering code in the OS itself.

That is true. The only things OEMs can do is provide customized firmware and drivers to support the OS. That was over of the reasons I liked Windows Phone and Windows Mobile.

Microsoft's mistake was that it was thinking like a software company and not like a devices company. It stuck with it with it's Surface line only because it understood the laptop market and was able to create a new genre based on that. Microsoft never really understood the smart phone market, even though it had been competing in it since the early 2000's with Windows CE.

 

[Dooki]

Yeah... It was a lot more than that. I used to have a 928 and an Icon. Microsoft did screw up though.

I knew a few people who had them. One loved it the other hated it. I've used them and they were decent phones and well thought out, but almost no apps. I would like to see them make a reappearence and give the others a run. Especially seeing as to how well Cortana is integrated into the ecosystem and how good the Android apps are.

 

[anon(7901790)]

I knew a few people who had them. One loved it the other hated it. I've used them and they were decent phones and well thought out, but almost no apps. I would like to see them make a reappearence and give the others a run. Especially seeing as to how well Cortana is integrated into the ecosystem and how good the Android apps are.

Me too. I loved both my 928 and Icon.

Windows phones were the first to use Qi charging, 4K video recording, RAW image capture, and out of the box encryption. Throw in Cortana and integrated Office support and it was a solid ecosystem.

But yeah, it was lack of app support that doomed them. For me it was because my credit union didn't have a Windows Phone app, among some others.

Microsoft has been really stepping up its game in the Android market though. Maybe it will make a return to the smart phone market the same way Back Berry did.

 

[o4liberty]

If google can do it with the pixel why can’t Samsung do the same with their devices especially at the note 8 price point.