Did AT&T forget about us?

[jamrock60]

Nokia and Microsoft made a bad decision when the started selling phones together. un like apple, Apple force all carrier to accept their protocol and how they do things Microsoft had to patch their software to fit how the carrier do thing. Because they were late to the game they have to accept how the carrier has position their network to suite apple and Google. Such is their storage network that AT&T offer to customer. It is optimized for Android and IOS. Microsoft has to set their software to accommodate what is there already. This is one of the reason why GDR2 is delayed by AT&T. Microsoft and Nokia have to be kissing Google and Apple *** to get the code right for AT&T locker so they decide to drag their feet so they can get Windows phone customers upset at AT&T and want to switch. Its a very dirty game that is been played between APPLE, MICROSOFT, AND GOOGLE and the carrier are all caught in the middle.

 

[Kieta]

I'm waiting as well for this update from AT&T as well. But I feel it's not fair to compare this to IOS updates. Apple has one or two models of a phone that can easily be updated across all networks. It's the same argument that has been going on in the PC/MAC world forever. My MAC never crashes, I don't have those bug problem on my MAC. Of course you don't. It's one configuration no matter where you buy it. PC come in so many flavors it spins heads, I'm surprised we can even have the stability we do have with PC's when you consider the many combinations of hardware one can choose when building a PC. Anyways, I want this update just as bad as everyone else but my life expectancy isn't up on Sept 30 if we don't get it by then. I will continue to post comments on their facebook when I'm online and I see they post something. I don't think they really care though. But comparing this to the IOS7 update just isn't the same thing in my book. What is AT&T doing with this update and why is it delayed so much? I have no idea and can only speculate as many have done in this thread. Unless we can get some trusted insider info that's all we can do.

 

[DatManWolf]

I'm waiting as well for this update from AT&T as well. But I feel it's not fair to compare this to IOS updates. Apple has one or two models of a phone that can easily be updated across all networks. It's the same argument that has been going on in the PC/MAC world forever. My MAC never crashes, I don't have those bug problem on my MAC. Of course you don't. It's one configuration no matter where you buy it. PC come in so many flavors it spins heads, I'm surprised we can even have the stability we do have with PC's when you consider the many combinations of hardware one can choose when building a PC. Anyways, I want this update just as bad as everyone else but my life expectancy isn't up on Sept 30 if we don't get it by then. I will continue to post comments on their facebook when I'm online and I see they post something. I don't think they really care though. But comparing this to the IOS7 update just isn't the same thing in my book. What is AT&T doing with this update and why is it delayed so much? I have no idea and can only speculate as many have done in this thread. Unless we can get some trusted insider info that's all we can do.

How is it not a fair comparison? Apple has many models of the iPhone, they still update 3-4 gens back. Apple still has fragmentation by stripping features on older models in their update, they still phase out older models, but the one thing apple has is the control to set the date and not let the carriers interfere. What does not make sense is the fact that AT&T has two Lumia models out right now that are running the update but they still have to test for the other models. And if we are talking about across all networks, AT&T is the only US carrier that has not rolled the update out to the Lumia series. Every other carrier has done this. Why, because they aren't trying to strip out features and control the content of the update. Which goes back to my first point, how do we have two phones that got released with the Amber/GDR2 update but they still are "testing" the update for the other models? It makes no sense.

 

[uselessrobot]

I'm sorry, but you aren't using your Mac nearly enough if it's never given you problems. I've used PCs and Macs for years and I'd say they're almost identical when it comes to problems. The difference is that Windows has traditionally exposed too much of it's inner workings, which can be overwhelming and a bit turn off. But in terms of stability, Mac is no better. In terms of user experience, each OS has it's advantages.

As for the situation with updates, this has nothing to do with the number of devices and everything to do with Apple's influence. iOS 7 has been released for a total of 8 devices. While I think that there's a Lumia release overload, AT&T doesn't have nearly that many devices with a pending GDR2 update. There are only 2 devices waiting for it; the 820 and 920 which, excluding the screen, feature identical internals. Everything else already comes with GDR2.

Unlike Microsoft or Lumia, however, Apple is the one with the leverage in the relationship with carriers. And this goes back to the early days of the iPhone. Back then there was less of a precedent for how updates were handled, but the iPod was already popular so AT&T was eager to get their grimy hands on the iPhone. So they gave in to Apple's demands. Now, given Apple's market share and guaranteed sales of any new iPhone they'll continue doing what Apple wants. Android may have a larger marketshare, but no single manufacturer dominates.

So what kind of threat could Microsoft possible level at AT&T? They couldn't care less, they'd happily drop Windows Phone altogether. And this is a fundamental issue with the American retail market. Retailers of all types are in total control and they really do help shape success for a brand even as inept as they may be. The only companies able to get around all those restrictions are those with an exceedingly popular product or who offer something that can be sold via more unconventional channels.

The only way we'll ever see immediate updates like Apple is for Windows Phone to acquire a similar market share. Basically, they need to reach a point where the carriers are asking Microsoft for permission to carry their phones because currently they, along with retailers, seem intent on burying the platform.

 

[Moiz Mian]

Anyone check Nokia Care Suite recently? Has the ATT ROM been updated to Amber over there?

 

[Kieta]

I'm sorry being in the IT field for over 20 years Apple problems don't even come close to PC problems from what I've witnessed as a tech. I'll just say BSOD from Windows 95 to current and leave it at that. And I really don't think market share would even help us Windows Phone users at this point. I used Android and still had to wait for AT&T to release an update months after everyone else had it and that was with a Motorola phone. And Android has the highest market share. IOS 7 was released for how many models of the iphone? 3 The other two versions are new and ship with the phone. Like I said I don't know why AT&T does the crap they do with updates. I agree it makes no sense and AT&T isn't helping by providing the same robotic answer whenever someone ask. But as some one mentioned before if updates are truly that important and needed the best thing to do is switch to IOS.

 

[Moiz Mian]

I'm sorry being in the IT field for over 20 years Apple problems don't even come close to PC problems from what I've witnessed as a tech. I'll just say BSOD from Windows 95 to current and leave it at that. And I really don't think market share would even help us Windows Phone users at this point. I used Android and still had to wait for AT&T to release an update months after everyone else had it and that was with a Motorola phone. And Android has the highest market share. IOS 7 was released for how many models of the iphone? 3 The other two versions are new and ship with the phone. Like I said I don't know why AT&T does the crap they do with updates. I agree it makes no sense and AT&T isn't helping by providing the same robotic answer whenever someone ask. But as some one mentioned before if updates are truly that important and needed the best thing to do is switch to IOS.

Iphone updates are lame :asleep:

 

[Kieta]

Iphone updates are lame :asleep:

LOL...I don't know about lame. But I could never stand the GUI. Way too cartoonish for me. And from what I hear from some people they look even more cartoonish with this update which I didn't think was possible. But hey that's Apple and if people like it more power to them.

 

[pantsaregood]

I'm sorry being in the IT field for over 20 years Apple problems don't even come close to PC problems from what I've witnessed as a tech. I'll just say BSOD from Windows 95 to current and leave it at that. And I really don't think market share would even help us Windows Phone users at this point. I used Android and still had to wait for AT&T to release an update months after everyone else had it and that was with a Motorola phone. And Android has the highest market share. IOS 7 was released for how many models of the iphone? 3 The other two versions are new and ship with the phone. Like I said I don't know why AT&T does the crap they do with updates. I agree it makes no sense and AT&T isn't helping by providing the same robotic answer whenever someone ask. But as some one mentioned before if updates are truly that important and needed the best thing to do is switch to IOS.

Of course you see problems with Apple computers less frequently - Apple computers are far less common. Taking the relative frequency of problems with Apple computers compared to computers running Windows would likely still show Apple to run into fewer issues.

However, if you consider only NT-based versions of Windows, the situation changes. DOS-based Windows had issues with BSODs frequently as a result of drivers crashing and taking the entire system down with them. NT doesn't allow for the same kind of hardware access, so a crashed driver generally doesn't mean anything except your driver crashed. The only BSODs I've ever seen on NT 6.x (I've used Vista, 7, 8, and 8.1) have been results of overclocking instability or faulty RAM, neither of which are the fault of the operating system.

 

[Moiz Mian]

Of course you see problems with Apple computers less frequently - Apple computers are far less common. Taking the relative frequency of problems with Apple computers compared to computers running Windows would likely still show Apple to run into fewer issues.

However, if you consider only NT-based versions of Windows, the situation changes. DOS-based Windows had issues with BSODs frequently as a result of drivers crashing and taking the entire system down with them. NT doesn't allow for the same kind of hardware access, so a crashed driver generally doesn't mean anything except your driver crashed. The only BSODs I've ever seen on NT 6.x (I've used Vista, 7, 8, and 8.1) have been results of overclocking instability or faulty RAM, neither of which are the fault of the operating system.

Then you haven't used NT based OS very often...even my surface pro was bluescreening once every couple weeks coming out of hibernate. Oddly enough, it's stopped after updating to the 8.1 Release Preview haha

 

[Kieta]

Of course you see problems with Apple computers less frequently - Apple computers are far less common. Taking the relative frequency of problems with Apple computers compared to computers running Windows would likely still show Apple to run into fewer issues.

However, if you consider only NT-based versions of Windows, the situation changes. DOS-based Windows had issues with BSODs frequently as a result of drivers crashing and taking the entire system down with them. NT doesn't allow for the same kind of hardware access, so a crashed driver generally doesn't mean anything except your driver crashed. The only BSODs I've ever seen on NT 6.x (I've used Vista, 7, 8, and 8.1) have been results of overclocking instability or faulty RAM, neither of which are the fault of the operating system.

Yeah,7 and 8 have had way less BSOD. But Vista had them all over the place. Remember you couldn't even install the OS with more than 2GB of memory or it would blue screen during install. MS released a patch quickly but we should just all forget about Vista. LOL

 

[Ed Boland]

Guys, I couldn't wait any longer. I had an upgrade available on one of my lines at at&t, I went up to the at&t store and got a brand new yellow 1020 tonight!
So now I have a 920 stuck on Portico, and a 1020 with GDR2/AMBER! W00t!

 

[pantsaregood]

Yeah,7 and 8 have had way less BSOD. But Vista had them all over the place. Remember you couldn't even install the OS with more than 2GB of memory or it would blue screen during install. MS released a patch quickly but we should just all forget about Vista. LOL

...no. The Vista installer is almost identical to the installer Windows 7 uses, and both will install on 512 MB RAM with no issue. Windows Vista earned and has a reputation it never deserved it was released with poor driver support - OEMs were distributing Windows 2000/XP drivers for use with Windows Vista (which uses a heavily modified kernel) and this resulted in poor performance. The release of Windows 7 went so smoothly not because Windows 7 is a radically updated operating system (it isn't - the changes from Vista to 7 are probably less significant to the changes between 8 and 8.1), but because compatible drivers were already available in the form of Windows Vista drivers - NT 6.x drivers all use the same model, so there were plenty of drivers readily available.

Don't believe me? Go install an RTM of Windows Vista on your modern computer. The biggest problem I would have with Vista today is that it lacks TRIM support.

 

[Kieta]

...no. The Vista installer is almost identical to the installer Windows 7 uses, and both will install on 512 MB RAM with no issue. Windows Vista earned and has a reputation it never deserved it was released with poor driver support - OEMs were distributing Windows 2000/XP drivers for use with Windows Vista (which uses a heavily modified kernel) and this resulted in poor performance. The release of Windows 7 went so smoothly not because Windows 7 is a radically updated operating system (it isn't - the changes from Vista to 7 are probably less significant to the changes between 8 and 8.1), but because compatible drivers were already available in the form of Windows Vista drivers - NT 6.x drivers all use the same model, so there were plenty of drivers readily available.

Don't believe me? Go install an RTM of Windows Vista on your modern computer. The biggest problem I would have with Vista today is that it lacks TRIM support.

Are you kidding me? Go google problems installing Vista without SP1 with more than 2GB of Ram and then come back. It was a well known problem and as I said Microsoft was on it quick and released a patch. It just wasn't possible to install it on any system from scratch with more than 2GB of Ram. I had to remove any RAM over 2GB,install Vista, install the patch Error message when you try to install Windows Vista on a computer that uses more than 3 GB of RAM: "STOP 0x0000000A" and then add the additonal memory back. Vista was on the right track but was a complete resource hog. I don't know how anyone who's used the OS can deny it.

 

[uselessrobot]

I still disagree and I have friends in IT who would too. I've known tech people who like OSX, but more because of the Linux core than any inherent stability. Having worked in design I've been around Macs all through my career going back to the days when a handful of companies were allowed to make Mac clones. Remember them and how Apple put them out of business because they were becoming a competitive threat?

Anyway, my own Macs have always typically been stable, as have been my Windows machines. However, for coworkers crashes were a daily, sometimes hourly, occurrence. It was pretty crazy, although admittedly far worse with OS9. At the end of the day, however, these people still couldn't bring themselves to criticize Apple. Where Microsoft ALWAYS got the blame for crashes where Apple never did. So perception was a big deal here.

People also forget that Microsoft was rising in a rapidly evolving environment. Those blue screens of death were almost always due to hardware incompatibilities or crap driver implementations which Microsoft had nothing to do with. And they were directly involved in a lot of the standardization we see today. It was crazy to see people go out and buy budget PCs and try to compare that to an expensive, top-of-the-line Mac.

The other big negative for Microsoft were all the problems with malware and security. That, in many ways, was Microsoft's fault. They were trying to enable the kind of open web we take for granted today. I don't know if it was naivete that drove them, but they focused on interoperability and connectivity when they should have focused on security first. That they were slow to adapt didn't help.

Prior to the first service pack Vista was crap, but I ran it for several years, before finally jumping to Windows 8 and had no problems at all. And let's not forget that there have been a number of OSX releases that were unstable garbage until patches were released. I forget if it was 10.5 or 10.6 that was particularly bad; it crashed hard on me within a minute or two of installation. It certainly explained the emergency patches I hadn't yet installed.

And there's a lot in iOS 7 that leaves me scratching my head. Bits of it feel like amateur hour. I'm left wondering if they put inexperienced designers on the job and tested inadequately or if they outsourced much of the work. It got the marketing bang for the buck they wanted, but I can't say it's a particularly good update. It does give me new found respect for Windows Phone.

What Apple has always excelled at is marketing, but the evangelists do make their job much easier.

 

[WPer]

Guys, I couldn't wait any longer. I had an upgrade available on one of my lines at at&t, I went up to the at&t store and got a brand new yellow 1020 tonight!
So now I have a 920 stuck on Portico, and a 1020 with GDR2/AMBER! W00t!

No offense, but you are probably the exact reason why AT&T does not feel hurt to delay the Amber update.

 

[uselessrobot]

No offense, but you are probably the exact reason why AT&T does not feel hurt to delay the Amber update.

Excellent point. All AT&T wants is for people to upgrade to the next big thing the instant it's released. So they're going to do everything in their power to make staying with your current phone uncomfortable. I'm sure AT&T would love to do the same with the iPhone. Apple, unfortunately, has them by the balls.

So in the next 6 months, when GDR3 is ready watch AT&T drag their feet on updates for the 920, 925 and 1020 in the hope that consumers will upgrade to whatever new phone is due for release. And they'll get away with it once again because far too many consumers are suckers.

 

[Kieta]

So does anybody think we will have it by the end of September as promised by Nokia?

 

[Fuzzy John]

So does anybody think we will have it by the end of September as promised by Nokia?

Is that the sound of crickets I am hearing?

 

[sinime]

Chirp