Hands0n
9th April 2012, 08:51 PM
There is a lengthy article on Ars Technica that caught my eye recently. Being too lengthy to re-publish here I'll simply offer the link to it --> http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2012/04/the-nokia-lumia-900-a-good-phone-at-a-great-price-that-you-probably-shouldnt-buy.ars
Entitled "The Nokia Lumia 900: A good phone at a great price that you probably shouldn't buy" the article discusses how, what should be a perfectly good smartphone experience, is likely to be ruined for the AT&T customer. Although of no particular consequence to a UK customer the article does illustrate succinctly how it is the mobile operator who will inevitably define the customer experience of their smartphone. That may be good, it may be average, it may be poor. But what stands out is that the mobile network operator (MNO) has an overwhelming control over that experience with one single exception.
What am I talking about? Well, it is all about smartphone OS updates, or rather, in the case of AT&T, the lack of them for WP7 devices. And although the article discusses AT&T's stranglehold over the WP7 devices (singling out the Nokia Lumia 900 and referring to the Lumia 800) it is clear that this impacts all smartphones offered by that MNO.
At its core, the problem is AT&T's policy towards updates. The company insists on "validating" updates prior to authorizing their rollout. This validation takes time and money. As such, AT&T doesn't want to do it very often. The company doesn't want to test minor updates, even if those minor updates solve infuriating glitches like the keyboard bug. The user experience doesn't seem to be AT&T's priority.
That appears to be the crux of the problem. Regardless of any whys or wherefores AT&T take it upon themselves to define when, if ever, a software update is going to be made available to their customers. At best this can add a massive latency on the update being received. At worst, the AT&T customer's device will never be updated and whatever bug, deficiency or security exposure will persist.
It couldn't happen here ...
One may like to think so, but it already does. Any little time spent on Twitter will see questions and complaints being raised about one device or another that has yet to receive an OS update that the manufacturer has already released to the generic (SIM-free) device. Weeks and months go by with the update yet to be received by the MNO's customer. How soon that is relies entirely upon the MNO itself "validating" and authorising the release.
Is this really an acceptable place to be? I do not think so. Quite apart from getting the latest goodies from the manufacturer this artificial delay or complete abstinence to the software update exposes the customer to unnecessary risk, particularly where known security issues relate. In the vast majority of case the average user is blissfully unaware of such issues and risks, and so there is a moral obligation on the MNO to do what it reasonably can to secure the customer where it can. And the prompt release of software updates is a very obvious and easy win.
About that single exception ...
There is only one single smartphone manufacturer in existence today that is able to bypass this MNO intrusiveness, and do it globally. That manufacturer is Apple with their iOS devices (iPhone and iPad) where the MNO has absolutely no say in the matter. As and when Apple decide that one or more of their iOS devices should be updated they do so, completely independently of the MNO and under Apple's complete control. This is control applied at the correct place. Not the madness that ensues everywhere else.
Apple are able to be so proscriptive simply because of their particular strong position in the market. No single manufacturer to date has been in that position to define policy to the MNOs. But surely that is how the future has to eventually become? The MNOs have shown themselves untrustworthy and unwilling to protect and maximise their customer's investment.
Entitled "The Nokia Lumia 900: A good phone at a great price that you probably shouldn't buy" the article discusses how, what should be a perfectly good smartphone experience, is likely to be ruined for the AT&T customer. Although of no particular consequence to a UK customer the article does illustrate succinctly how it is the mobile operator who will inevitably define the customer experience of their smartphone. That may be good, it may be average, it may be poor. But what stands out is that the mobile network operator (MNO) has an overwhelming control over that experience with one single exception.
What am I talking about? Well, it is all about smartphone OS updates, or rather, in the case of AT&T, the lack of them for WP7 devices. And although the article discusses AT&T's stranglehold over the WP7 devices (singling out the Nokia Lumia 900 and referring to the Lumia 800) it is clear that this impacts all smartphones offered by that MNO.
At its core, the problem is AT&T's policy towards updates. The company insists on "validating" updates prior to authorizing their rollout. This validation takes time and money. As such, AT&T doesn't want to do it very often. The company doesn't want to test minor updates, even if those minor updates solve infuriating glitches like the keyboard bug. The user experience doesn't seem to be AT&T's priority.
That appears to be the crux of the problem. Regardless of any whys or wherefores AT&T take it upon themselves to define when, if ever, a software update is going to be made available to their customers. At best this can add a massive latency on the update being received. At worst, the AT&T customer's device will never be updated and whatever bug, deficiency or security exposure will persist.
It couldn't happen here ...
One may like to think so, but it already does. Any little time spent on Twitter will see questions and complaints being raised about one device or another that has yet to receive an OS update that the manufacturer has already released to the generic (SIM-free) device. Weeks and months go by with the update yet to be received by the MNO's customer. How soon that is relies entirely upon the MNO itself "validating" and authorising the release.
Is this really an acceptable place to be? I do not think so. Quite apart from getting the latest goodies from the manufacturer this artificial delay or complete abstinence to the software update exposes the customer to unnecessary risk, particularly where known security issues relate. In the vast majority of case the average user is blissfully unaware of such issues and risks, and so there is a moral obligation on the MNO to do what it reasonably can to secure the customer where it can. And the prompt release of software updates is a very obvious and easy win.
About that single exception ...
There is only one single smartphone manufacturer in existence today that is able to bypass this MNO intrusiveness, and do it globally. That manufacturer is Apple with their iOS devices (iPhone and iPad) where the MNO has absolutely no say in the matter. As and when Apple decide that one or more of their iOS devices should be updated they do so, completely independently of the MNO and under Apple's complete control. This is control applied at the correct place. Not the madness that ensues everywhere else.
Apple are able to be so proscriptive simply because of their particular strong position in the market. No single manufacturer to date has been in that position to define policy to the MNOs. But surely that is how the future has to eventually become? The MNOs have shown themselves untrustworthy and unwilling to protect and maximise their customer's investment.