04-25-2012 08:46 AM
147 ... 456
tools
  1. mparker's Avatar
    wow seriously . if you did some research you would know .

    The truth about Windows Phone 7, software updates, and carriers’ ability to block those updates | Windows Phone Secrets


    if you read that and see the quotes from JOE BELFIORE, its clearly explained.

    basically a carrier can only block a update for ONE cycle , and that would happen ONLY if they dont get the testing done on time. ( one cycle like does minor updates ) now they cant miss 2 updates cycle cause MS cooks in the updates they miss.

    if this happens MS will work with the carrier to includes missed updates into the NEXT update, and in theory if a carrier blocks a MAJOR update witch MS would NOT be happy with , they could completely BYPASS the carrier and just release on ZUNE as JOE says.

    wow seriously . if you did some research you would know - the guy that wrote that article has since issued a correction. That statement by Belfiore has been retracted/disavowed/memory-holed by microsoft.

    Paul Thurrott: Tango may not come to all Windows phones | WMPoweruser

    Edit: wrong link above - here's the right one: http://www.winsupersite.com/article/...visited-142382

    At a reviewer workshop in October 2010, before the product launch, Microsoft's Joe Belfiore had told reviewers, "if a carrier wants to stop an update they can. But they will get it out on the next release." He added that updates were cumulative, which is true, but reiterated that "if one [carrier] doesn't get their testing done in time, the next push date comes and it goes out then."

    These statements created what I now know to be a misunderstanding, where it was believed that carriers could block one Windows Phone update, but once another update appears, the carriers that blocked the previous update would be required to ship both.

    ....

    I've since learned that this comment about software updates is not correct. It's not correct at all.
    ...

    wireless carriers are not required to ship at least every other update. They can block software updates as they see fit. And, as is now happening, some carriers have in fact blocked two updates in a row.
    Last edited by mparker; 04-23-2012 at 06:24 PM.
    04-23-2012 01:31 PM
  2. selfcreation's Avatar
    ok w/e.

    lets all stay negative :)
    04-23-2012 01:35 PM
  3. mparker's Avatar
    the answer to part of that is common sense. Carriers wouldn't be obligated to release an update to a device Microsoft no longer supports.. Now people are just really reaching.
    What evidence do we actually have that *anybody* is obligated to release an update whatsoever, without even getting into the question of what exactly Microsoft would consider to be the "devices they support"?

    Paul Thurrott, who was the original source for this whole idea of mandatory updates, has since retracted this, saying he misunderstood what Belfiore meant, and that Microsoft has told him that carriers can block *any* update, even multiple updates, without any problems.
    04-23-2012 01:37 PM
  4. socialcarpet's Avatar
    ok w/e.

    lets all stay negative :)
    I heard from a "trusted source" inside Microsoft that not only will none of the current phones be getting Apollo, but Microsoft is actually going to force an OTA downgrade to Windows Mobile 6.0. You will just wake up one morning and your Lumia will be running Windows Mobile circa 2007.

    A trusted source told me this, so everyone can now begin discussing it as if it's a known fact.
    04-23-2012 01:54 PM
  5. oldpueblo's Avatar
    With faster hardware and a bigger screen that might not be so bad. :P
    04-23-2012 02:01 PM
  6. alpinestars1z's Avatar
    I heard from a "trusted source" inside Microsoft that not only will none of the current phones be getting Apollo, but Microsoft is actually going to force an OTA downgrade to Windows Mobile 6.0. You will just wake up one morning and your Lumia will be running Windows Mobile circa 2007.

    A trusted source told me this, so everyone can now begin discussing it as if it's a known fact.
    Oh goodie! Now all the people who were complaining about the boring live tiles, the lack of a user accessible file system, Bluetooth file transfer, and lack of customization will surely be satisfied now! /sarcasm
    04-23-2012 02:05 PM
  7. selfcreation's Avatar
    well following the TREND that MS is on , im not worried. so far every carrier release the major updates on time so far ( a few phones had problems but each carrier launched it . you not getting the update right away doesn't mean it dint get launch on time just in case some one claims it does because of the update QUE they use.)

    if MS keeps going the way they have from day 1: we gona get Apollo and all carriers will release it.

    the only carrier right now I see NOT supporting an UPDATE is BELL in Canada cause they are one of the only *original WP carrier* to no longer sale WP.


    Beside if a carrier does NOT release a major Update, that carrier just lost 100% WP sales and the CEO would get fired.

    not to mention AT&T just got paid MILLIONS to use NOKIA 900 as a flag ship ... why would they NOT release it!? to get sued by Nokia? for not holding up a contract...

    comment sens 101
    04-23-2012 02:09 PM
  8. 1jaxstate1's Avatar
    Just add this as your wallpaper and you'll have Apollo. It's all rumor and speculation. Just chill out and relax. It won't be the end of the world if does or does not come out for current phone.

    [/url]
    socialcarpet likes this.
    04-23-2012 02:12 PM
  9. mparker's Avatar
    Beside if a carrier does NOT release a major Update, that carrier just lost 100% WP sales and the CEO would get fired.
    Except for AT&T I'm not certain most carriers would even notice, and even there only (possibly) in the last few weeks. WP7 sales have been pretty low after all.


    not to mention AT&T just got paid MILLIONS to use NOKIA 900 as a flag ship ... why would they NOT release it!? to get sued by Nokia? for not holding up a contract...
    If you have a copy of the contract I'd love to see the relevant parts that AT&T would be violating by not upgrading the Focus, Focus S, Quantum, and Titan phones to Apollo or even Tango. If you don't have a copy of the contract then why try to make such a claim? Much less why do you keep repeating claims like this?

    If the contract requires them to release Apollo for the Lumia 900, and Apollo is released for the Lumia 900, and their testing indicates that it works, then I'd expect them to release it for the Lumia 900. But that's a lot of "if's". Of all the WP7 phones, the Lumia 900 is the one I think has the highest chance of getting Apollo. But I don't think it is very high even there.
    04-23-2012 02:32 PM
  10. selfcreation's Avatar
    first of all, if one phones gets it on a carrier , they ALL DO! its the same update.

    MS sends to OEMs , OEMS sends back to MS . MS then sends to Carriers for network testing.

    i wasn't taking about the Apollo update directly, im talking about ALL the updates.

    aside carriers don' t decide if ALL WP will get Apollo, MS does 100%

    and what does the Focus, Focus S, Quantum, and Titan have to do with NOKAI's contract with AT&T?? nothing!

    im just saying if MS decides to push Apollo to the NOKIA 900 and AT&T doesn't release the update .. NOKIA would be pissed and could possibly sue AT&T for not supporting a device they are SUPPOSE to support. because they where paid MILLIONS to support/ push it.

    *not supporting a phone after a a agreement with a major RTM* = not holding up there part of the deal = not holding up a contract = could get sued.
    04-23-2012 02:56 PM
  11. mparker's Avatar
    first of all, if one phones gets it on a carrier , they ALL DO! its the same update.
    So we all just imagined the problems with the Focus update where one variant didn't get it for months - somehow it was still same update that they got? We all are just hallucinating the updates that went to unbranded L800 phones but not to branded AT&T phones?


    aside carriers don' t decide if ALL WP will get Apollo, MS does 100%
    There is real-world evidence that you are wrong on this point, that while Microsoft has the first say as to whether a phone gets a particular update, carriers have the final say.


    im just saying if MS decides to push Apollo to the NOKIA 900 and AT&T doesn't release the update .. NOKIA would be pissed and could possibly sue AT&T for not supporting a device they are SUPPOSE to support. because they where paid MILLIONS to support/ push it.

    *not supporting a phone after a a agreement with a major RTM* = not holding up there part of the deal = not holding up a contract = could get sued.
    You would get p*ssed, but you are not Nokia. Nokia might get p*ssed, or maybe not, it depends on a lot of things. Suppose they were both aware before getting into bed with each other that the Lumia 900 wouldn't be getting Apollo. Still think Nokia would be pissed? This is not a far-fetched scenario, it's what Thurrott and the "insider" leak from The Site Which Shall Not Be Named have been saying.

    But let's follow your point. If Microsoft releases Apollo for the 900, and if the contract between AT&T and Nokia mandates the release of the Apollo update, and if there is no way for AT&T to fail it for bogus reasons, and if there is no way for AT&T to delay it indefinitely through testing, and if AT&T refuses to release the update, Nokia could possibly sue AT&T. Whether they are allowed to sue or must choose binding arbitration, which court they would be allowed to sue in, and what particular remedies they could pursue, are all going to be spelled out in their contract. If you don't know what the details of that contract are - and so far you've given zero evidence that you do - then you're just talking out of your *ss.
    04-23-2012 04:05 PM
  12. selfcreation's Avatar
    DUDE! seriously this is NOT a android phone

    Samsung focus had NOTHING to do with the carrier!! it was a hardware problem hence why they change the rev from 1.3 to 1.4 the carrier was planing on releasing it but because SAMSUNG held it back they couldn't release it for that model. but the carrier STILL got the update.

    every single phone got mango!!!! ALL OF THEM! took longer cause of bugs ( like is aid in my other post ) but they still got it!!! same with with the DELL VP was like 2-3 months late due to bugs.

    second you think AT&T decides if first gen phones get the next update? LMAO .. end of that convo , weather or not first gen phones will get the next update is 100% HARDWARE/ROM related,. nothing to do with carriers.

    if the 900 supports Apollo and AT&T doesn't release it and other carriers do . you bet your *** NOKIA will sue . but it wont happen cause OEM and RTM work together on the update with MS.

    it might just take longer.
    04-23-2012 05:08 PM
  13. canesfan625's Avatar
    wow seriously . if you did some research you would know - the guy that wrote that article has since issued a correction. That statement by Belfiore has been retracted/disavowed/memory-holed by microsoft.

    Paul Thurrott: Tango may not come to all Windows phones | WMPoweruser
    According to Paul Thurrott we probably shouldn't have mango either.

    Did you read why he thinks some phones wont get tango? the guy is a joke.
    selfcreation likes this.
    04-23-2012 05:15 PM
  14. mparker's Avatar
    According to Paul Thurrott we probably shouldn't have mango either.

    Did you read why he thinks some phones wont get tango? the guy is a joke.

    Sorry, wrong link before. Here's the thurrott post where he retracts his statements about carriers being required to release wp7 updates:

    http://www.winsupersite.com/article/...visited-142382
    04-23-2012 06:21 PM
  15. selfcreation's Avatar
    I still stand with this:

    if first and second GEN phones do get the *go ahead* for apollo , and considering the big pay out AT&T got from Nokia, I VERY MUCH DOUBT that they would block it.
    04-23-2012 06:31 PM
  16. canesfan625's Avatar
    Sorry, wrong link before. Here's the thurrott post where he retracts his statements about carriers being required to release wp7 updates:

    http://www.winsupersite.com/article/...visited-142382
    Carriers will not block Windows Phone 7 updates | MobileTechWorld

    We know they might not care about minor updates but let see how major updates trend.
    04-23-2012 06:52 PM
  17. pikacz's Avatar
    guys, apollo is scheduled to be released in Q4 this year and the new phones (e.g. Lumia 900 or Titan II) are just coming out. do you really think that MS will drop support for them only a couple of months before the big event?
    04-25-2012 06:58 AM
  18. Fuzzy John's Avatar
    guys, apollo is scheduled to be released in Q4 this year and the new phones (e.g. Lumia 900 or Titan II) are just coming out. do you really think that MS will drop support for them only a couple of months before the big event?
    I don't think that would be a first.
    04-25-2012 08:00 AM
  19. canesfan625's Avatar
    I don't think that would be a first.
    What windows phone has Microsoft dropped support for? I'm assuming you're going to say windows mobile?
    04-25-2012 08:21 AM
  20. mparker's Avatar
    He's not really arguing that they won't block the update, he's arguing that they can't (i.e. that they won't because they can't) - from the linked article:

    I dont think that Carriers can or will block OS Windows Phone 7 updates. Why? Because they technically shouldnt be able to do so given that everything is owned by Microsoft. Every update or notifications is done by Microsoft via their own server.
    This is an impressively blinkered analysis of the situation. There are multiple ways a carrier block might be implemented, and the article only dismisses one of them (and the one that was never really in question anyway). I don't think that anyone has ever claimed that the carrier block was done via technical means; it's always been known that the updates were coming from Microsoft's servers, and it's been known since the NoDo/Focus v4 fiasco that Microsoft was where the radio roms and os code were integrated. But just because the carrier block isn't accomplished via this particular technical method doesn't mean that carrier blocks doesn't exist. We've seen far too many instances where updates never go out for some carrier's but do for others. Whether the "carrier block" is implemented via controlling the distribution, or whether it's implemented by sternly-worded threat to block devices with that particular version, or whether it's implemented via a politely-worded request, it doesn't really matter to the end-user who doesn't get that update.
    04-25-2012 08:42 AM
  21. Fuzzy John's Avatar
    What windows phone has Microsoft dropped support for? I'm assuming you're going to say windows mobile?
    What is "support"? Microsoft will support WP7 by providing fixes or updates if serious issues are found. Support does not mean providing a newer OS to replace the older one.
    Remember the various versions of Windows Mobile? Basically the same thing happened there, albeit the fixes and updates were far and few in between once the newer version of WM was released.
    Then if you step outside of the phone area, Microsoft had many products that later they dropped completely.
    04-25-2012 08:42 AM
  22. mparker's Avatar
    do you really think that MS will drop support for them only a couple of months before the big event?
    Yes - if they go to the Win8 kernel (which is not yet confirmed). I'm sure they'll continue to issue bugfixes and minor updates, which will continue being blocked by the carriers.
    04-25-2012 08:46 AM
147 ... 456
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD