Lately, there has been a lot of talk about how updates will work on Windows Phone 7. Now there's talk about talk about talk in Ars Technica's latest article on the subject. Much of this we find amusing but not too illuminating. Still, we'll take a crack at why some of this is wrong and misguided.
The issue, we believe, starts from what Microsoft's Charlie Kindel said awhile back about WP7:
"We want everyone on the same version of the OS." He continued, "Updates will be available through the Zune desktop or over the air." Larger updates would be handled through the Zune software while minor updates would be handled OTA.
Recently however, Windows Phone Thoughts had an in-depth interview with Andrew Brown, Program Manager for Windows Phone Update who stated that OTA updates are now out of the picture.
Reason? Read more to find out why and why some of Ars Technica's arguments are either incorrect or unimportant.
So the justification by Microsoft for shelving OTA updates is due to them having concerns about reliability. From that same interview, Microsoft's Brown continues:
For our first version, we really wanted a consistent, reliable solution that our customers could trust 100%. Connecting to a computer and using the Zune client software for the update gives us several advantages, including a large screen for the update user interface, the ability to charge the phone while updating, and a full backup of the phone in case any problems occur.
Basically, Microsoft considers the OTA program a little too risky on their 1st generation OS and would prefer tethered updates through Zune. However, the framework is there for when they do want to jump to OTA. Fair enough, we say. Could you imagine an OTA update bricking thousands of devices and the bad press that would give? So you need to sync with your PC to update--that was a given anyways for large firmware updates. Now you'll have to do it for those potential Mobile Internet Explorer updates or other fixes.
But we take big issue with this Ars's statement:
We were originally promised iPhone-like upgrades for Windows Phone 7. Better, in fact, due to the over-the-air updating. And we're not going to get it.
This is a false assertion. Who exactly made that promise? We were hard pressed to find this quote or implication anywhere. The closest was Kindel's statement above. But that's not iPhone-like at all. The only mention of carriers was not a quote from Kindel but the author's own words. Mind you, that was before the OS went Gold and yes, sometimes plans change during development. This happens all the time and we figured people we be used to that now. But saying we were promised this feature by Microsoft is going a bit far in this case.
Second, they spend a lot of time over a quote from Microsoft's Joe Belfiore at the reviewers workshop where he said "Carriers could in fact block updates to sell you a phone. That can happen." That's quite revealing and newsworthy. Except for the followup, which they de-emphasized: "But we don't expect that to happen."
Granted, that is an interesting revelation. Almost. We don't even know what it really means since that all we have on the matter. All we know is Microsoft doesn't expect it to happen--so why should we? Heading back to the interview with Microsoft's Brown, he mentions this:
But OEMs and Mobile Operators can submit their own update code as part of an overall update that is delivered through Microsoft Update. We definitely will work very closely with our partners to make sure updates are tested thoroughly, but also released in a timely fashion, following standard practices in the industry today for smartphone devices.
The carriers, Microsoft and OEMs are all partners here. That's not the iPhone-model where they run roughshod over AT&T (well, except when allegedly colluding on blocking VOIP solutions). And no one said they would be like Apple in this regard. Carriers are not expected to purposefully block an update and it would be very bad press in such a competitive market as today. Not to mention, one would think Microsoft would not be too pleased either.
Finally, all we know is we don't know. Microsoft is constantly evolving, evidently changing day by day. While we have no love for the carriers and prefer the dumb-pipe model too, we understand that pushing them out of the picture 100% is not an option. Not immediately at least. The fact that we don't' have bloatware on our phones and we can uninstall all software (including carrier bundled software) is already a huge victory. How about we let the dust settle on v1.0 and wait and see what actually happens, then discuss? Seems a lot more productive than breaking down English imperatives in an attempt to find the truth value of statements, like we were in Semantics 101.
Now pardon us, we have phones to play with.
PS5 games prices are higher than Xbox — but is that a good thing?
Sony's PlayStation 5 reveal came with some big caveats, and one of the most overlooked ones is the fact that games will be more expensive, seemingly across the board. Should Microsoft and Xbox jump on that train as well?
Review: Gigabyte's Z490 AORUS ULTRA is a gorgeous Intel motherboard
Gigabyte's Z490 AORUS ULTRA is a motherboard you should consider for a 10th or 11th Gen Intel-powered PC. On paper, it has plenty going for it, including amazing power design and cooling, passively cooled M.2 slots and good overclocking support.
You can get the Windows 10 October 2020 update early – here's how
In this guide, we'll show you the steps to upgrade your computer to the final release of the Windows 10 October 2020 Update before it's officially available to everyone.
These Surface Studio 2 alternatives are all WAY more affordable
Looking for alternatives to the Surface Studio 2? Perhaps we can help.