As for your 810 it maybe compatibility issues who knows but you bought it (as is), read you TOF, it's the paper work that came with the phone / computer. or go to Microsoft, apple, android, OEM sites. they all have it.
Now I have pervaded the proof for my statements, unless you have something I missed I like to read it.
Horse apples. If Microsoft's lifecycle policy legally obliges Microsoft to provide updates to consumers, then MS is required to do so or risk being sued. Your hypothesis would also be a lot more believable if the Lumia 810's internals were not 100% identical to the 820's, which did get the update.
Yes I did get the use of the license
Go to settings on your windows phone, scroll down to ABOUT windows phone, tap on (Terms of use)
this is your license between you and Microsoft to use the software., and you agreed with this when you activated you phone., and any app you download has a TOF use just by excepting the download.
Microsoft contract with OEMs and the Carrier are between them, and they have there own TOF
Of course there are also terms and conditions that apply to users of the Windows Phone OS. I never said there weren't. At least we've now clearly established and agree that the ToU for users and those for the OEM (who purchases the OS license) are not identical.
The topic of this thread is Microsoft's alleged obligation to provide updates to consumers and how that is allegedly spelled out in Microsoft's lifecycle policies for Windows Phone.
All you've done so far is highlight two legal documents that apply to consumers, but neither of them have anything to say about Microsoft's obligation to provide updates to consumers, nor do either of them include/replicate the passages from Microsoft's lifecycle policy. Why not? Because those passages aren't about consumers and don't apply to consumers. That has been my point all along. Now you're basically helping me make it.
You can link to as many documents as you want. If they don't spell out how Microsoft is obliged to deliver updates to consumers, then I'd consider them irrelevant to this topic. You won't find any such documents however, because they don't exist.
I'll give you one more way of looking at it. To recap, this is the sentence causing all the confusion:
Microsoft will make updates available for the Operating System, including security updates, for a minimum of 36 months after the lifecycle start date.
Does that sound like a very precise way to describe how MS will deliver updates to consumers? How many update
s? How would you explain that so far, every version of WP has violated that text (no version of WP has ever received updates for 36 months, as updates appear long before the 36 month mark, and the older version is then never updated again)? How would you explain that WP7.8, who's lifecycle policy had the same wording, never received even a single update? Sure, with enough creativity and excuses you can explain and talk your way around all these ambiguities, but then you'd have to admit that this is the poorest legal document any lawyer in he world has ever written. How likely is that? Lawyers tend to be rather precise. That's their job.
Look at it as pertaining to OEMs however, and all the ambiguities disappear. What it's actually saying is that IF MS does provide an update, MS will keep it on hand for the stated duration, during which time MS is obliged to make it available (and provide support) to OEMs who want to use it to update their WP devices. Viewed that way, it instantly makes much more sense...
Your a grate moderator thank you.
Thank you too.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram