[bobshine]

There is a serious lack of interest, especially from US carriers to provide the latest updates. For whatever reasons that I won't discuss here, it's penalising BlackBerry and it is a security hazard not having an up to date OS.

Basically everything on BB10 is a bar file... or an app. Why not slip the OS update into two (which I believe it is already sort of that way anyway).

Part one would be updates that would concern carriers and their bloatware and radio files etc...

Part two would be from BlackBerry and it can be in App World.

Posted via CB10

[jaydee5799]

Makes sense. Why would BB do it then?

[bobshine]

Carrier wouldn't like it of course. Look at AT&T blocking bridge or BBM over cellular network.

But by using BlackBerry World, they'll circumvent carrier approval and, will probably kill their relationship with them... but relationship with them is killing BlackBerry now.

Posted via CB10

[Omnitech]

Carrier wouldn't like it of course. Look at AT&T blocking bridge or BBM over cellular network.

But by using BlackBerry World, they'll circumvent carrier approval and, will probably kill their relationship with them... but relationship with them is killing BlackBerry now.

It's a nice fantasy, but I think they need to tread very carefully with this sort of thing.

The simple fact is, they still need the carriers as partners. Without them, they're dead.

And their leverage is very small right now because their sales are very small. I think they need to try to come up with a "carrot" that the carriers will feel motivates them to accept such a scheme. Perhaps something eventually with a cut of their device management revenue or something.

Apple offered not only high numbers of device sales, but also the following:

• Offloading of the carrier customer-support burden because Apple's worldwide retail presence as well as large telephone support organization can do the end-user support that most vendors offload almost completely to carriers (at least in the USA and many developed markets)
• Apple operates their own fully-equipped RF testing laboratory, allowing them to streamline the RF-compatibility portion of carrier testing by submitting their own test results

[Thud Hardsmack]

It's a nice fantasy, but I think they need to tread very carefully with this sort of thing.

The simple fact is, they still need the carriers as partners. Without them, they're dead.

And their leverage is very small right now because their sales are very small. I think they need to try to come up with a "carrot" that the carriers will feel motivates them to accept such a scheme. Perhaps something eventually with a cut of their device management revenue or something.

Apple offered not only high numbers of device sales, but also the following:

• Offloading of the carrier customer-support burden because Apple's worldwide retail presence as well as large telephone support organization can do the end-user support that most vendors offload almost completely to carriers (at least in the USA and many developed markets)
• Apple operates their own fully-equipped RF testing laboratory, allowing them to streamline the RF-compatibility portion of carrier testing by submitting their own test results

How does that work with enterprise? If carriers decided to drop BlackBerry completely would they still be required to push updates, or would it fall to various IT/BES admins to do the testing and delivery?

[Omnitech]

How does that work with enterprise? If carriers decided to drop BlackBerry completely would they still be required to push updates, or would it fall to various IT/BES admins to do the testing and delivery?

I don't know the answer to that.

[AnimalPak200]

I think the whole splitting OS into the OS and radio files came about with this intention (make it modular)... however I imagine the carriers still declined because, as stated above, they still have to provide support and thus spend on training.

You have to realize that there is no real incentive for carriers to push an update. As long as the device connects to their network, sends/receives calls, sms, and data... then they owe nothing more to the customer. Why spend on testing, training, publishing materials, etc. Required to push and support an update, with little or no financial gain to them?

Posted via CB10

[sickyute]

This a little off topic but it's interesting / funny.

Here BlackBerry users complain about not getting updates but on the other side of the fence, some IOS users were complaining about being 'forced' to update.

It's all about freedom of choice I guess.

http://m.cnet.com/news/ios-6-holdout...nload/57604701

Posted via CB10 running on Z10STL100-1/10.2.1.2141

[Omnitech]

You have to realize that there is no real incentive for carriers to push an update. As long as the device connects to their network, sends/receives calls, sms, and data... then they owe nothing more to the customer.

Not really. Since the majority of smartphone hardware is purchased directly from carriers in the USA, they certainly DO have an obligation to support that equipment just like any other retailer has an obligation to do so to some extent.

If carriers are going to INSIST on being the primary reseller of smartphone hardware that connects to their network, and if carriers are going to INSIST on gatekeeping firmware updates, then they cannot shirk their responsibility to not blockade product improvements from the manufacturer.

Here BlackBerry users complain about not getting updates but on the other side of the fence, some IOS users were complaining about being 'forced' to update.

It's all about freedom of choice I guess.

iOS 6 holdouts complain about large, unwanted iOS 7 download - CNET Mobile

People here complain about that too.

I've been nagged by Verizon every single day for weeks now to update the OS on my primary Z10, but I refuse to do it because I don't want that buggy build (10.2.1.1925) on any of my devices, and I prefer to do it by file, not OTA anyway. I'm waiting for a build of 10.2.1 that I feel good about. Maybe the newly rumored version will be that build, but I will STILL probably install it by file/USB, rather than OTA.

[AnimalPak200]

Not really. Since the majority of smartphone hardware is purchased directly from carriers in the USA, they certainly DO have an obligation to support that equipment just like any other retailer has an obligation to do so to some extent.

Like I said, as long as it connects to the network, makes calls, sms, and data (which are the three things a subscriber pays for), then they are fulfilling their support "obligation". You bought the device with the functionality it had at the time, unless it loses any of that functionality then they owe nothing. As far as they're concerned... if you want more functionality... buy a newer device.

I agree with you that the entire model is flawed and has become very outdated. It worked ok with feature phones that hardly, if ever, received firmware re-flashes, but now things are very different. Unfortunately most people in the US aren't used to (or can't) pay full price for a cell phone... so who else would benefit from subsidizing them?


Posted via CB10

[toobs623]

I figured I'd add to this conversation that there is another challenge in splitting updates into a BlackBerry update and a carrier update. I don't know exactly why but there are big differences in how certain radio files interact with certain OS's. This is why each radio is paired to a specific OS. The 10.2.0 leaks were really interesting, radios matched and mismatched all over the place Then there's 10.2.1.1925 which came with the 1899 version of the radio instead of 1926.

But there is certainly issues in mismatching. You can imagine BlackBerry pushing the 10.2.1 OS without a radio. No one in the US would be able to make phone calls! *rotl*

Posted via CB10

[Omnitech]

Like I said, as long as it connects to the network, makes calls, sms, and data (which are the three things a subscriber pays for), then they are fulfilling their support "obligation". You bought the device with the functionality it had at the time, unless it loses any of that functionality then they owe nothing. As far as they're concerned... if you want more functionality... buy a newer device.

I agree with you that the entire model is flawed and has become very outdated. It worked ok with feature phones that hardly, if ever, received firmware re-flashes, but now things are very different.

I think you contradict yourself.

On the one hand you say they have no obligation, then you go on to say that the model is outdated. Why not just adjust to the modern reality that modern electronic products are generally computing devices that run on firmware, technology moves swiftly, and accept that they in fact ARE obligated to not stand in the way of that.

Even some Sigma interchangeable lenses for SLR cameras now are firmware updateable. These are not products you expect to last for 6 months to a year and then throw in the trash. (Much as certain entities might wish)

I'm well aware of carrier reasoning for controlling firmware updates (See my new FAQ on this), but by the same token, they can't expect to dumb-down every wireless device simply for their their own self-serving reasons.

If carriers are so determined to stand in the way, then I say it's time for regulators to say "enough", and force them to either maintain reasonable support for device improvements over time, or release their stranglehold on OS updates for wireless devices entirely.

Unfortunately most people in the US aren't used to (or can't) pay full price for a cell phone... so who else would benefit from subsidizing them?

That's kind of a silly assumption.

For example in India, there is no such thing as cellular device subsidies, for all practical purposes. This is in a country where 94% of the citizenry lives on $4.00 USD/day or less.

And they typically pay around $8 USD/month for cellular service.

[bobshine]

I figured I'd add to this conversation that there is another challenge in splitting updates into a BlackBerry update and a carrier update. I don't know exactly why but there are big differences in how certain radio files interact with certain OS's. This is why each radio is paired to a specific OS. The 10.2.0 leaks were really interesting, radios matched and mismatched all over the place Then there's 10.2.1.1925 which came with the 1899 version of the radio instead of 1926.

But there is certainly issues in mismatching. You can imagine BlackBerry pushing the 10.2.1 OS without a radio. No one in the US would be able to make phone calls! *rotl*

Posted via CB10

Hmmm but I would say that maybe 99% of the OS can be updated without affecting the radio files. The radio files can but a second set of updates.

Posted via CB10

[toobs623]

Hmmm but I would say that maybe 99% of the OS can be updated without affecting the radio files. The radio files can but a second set of updates.

Posted via CB10

Unfortunately that's not true. The success rate is much lower.

Posted via CB10

[jameteer58]

It works good on both touch and non-touch devices.