麻辣隔壁 所有的猪鸡 软鸡都应该被告# PDA - 掌中宝
p*m
1 楼
果鸡万岁
The Consumentenbond accuses Samsung of unfair trade practices, claiming that
the company does not explicitly mention for how long customers should
expect to receive software updates. Furthermore, Samsung is also blamed for
not being transparent regarding critical security updates, such as the one
required to fix the Stagefright exploits. The watchdog remarks that it is
only focusing on Samsung first due to the manufacturer's firm grip over the
local market, as other manufacturers are also guilty of the same practices.
According to the agency's own research, 82% of the Samsung phones examined "
had not been provided with the latest Android version in the two years after
being introduced".
At this point, we should mention that these are valid claims. Samsung, like
most other Android manufacturers, does not provide timely updates to all of
its devices. Sure, the Galaxy S6 series has received timely Stagefright
patches, but the manufacturer largely remained silent when it comes to
Stagefright fixes for its vast array of mid-range and entry-level devices.
Furthermore, none of Samsung's devices currently runs Android 6.0
Marshmallow, three months after the OS officially launched.
In the light of these accurate claims, what the Consumentenbond is demanding
might be an overreach. The consumer protection agency has requested that
Samsung updates all of its smartphones to the latest version of Android for
two years since the handset is purchased (not launched) and in less than
four weeks following code availability from Google.
In some ways, the Consumentenbond is demanding smartphone makers to treat
software updates like part of the warranty, which has its length mandated at
two years in the European Union.
While we would surely love to see it happening, such an obligation would
create a lot of problems for smartphone makers since they would have to
offer timely software updates for about four years (based on an average two-
year shelf life for most smartphones) for each smartphone. For the moment,
we'll fill this one under our "desirable but not likely" folder.
What do you guys think, wouldn't you love it if smartphone makers were
forced to offer timely software updates for two years after you've purchased
a handset?
The Consumentenbond accuses Samsung of unfair trade practices, claiming that
the company does not explicitly mention for how long customers should
expect to receive software updates. Furthermore, Samsung is also blamed for
not being transparent regarding critical security updates, such as the one
required to fix the Stagefright exploits. The watchdog remarks that it is
only focusing on Samsung first due to the manufacturer's firm grip over the
local market, as other manufacturers are also guilty of the same practices.
According to the agency's own research, 82% of the Samsung phones examined "
had not been provided with the latest Android version in the two years after
being introduced".
At this point, we should mention that these are valid claims. Samsung, like
most other Android manufacturers, does not provide timely updates to all of
its devices. Sure, the Galaxy S6 series has received timely Stagefright
patches, but the manufacturer largely remained silent when it comes to
Stagefright fixes for its vast array of mid-range and entry-level devices.
Furthermore, none of Samsung's devices currently runs Android 6.0
Marshmallow, three months after the OS officially launched.
In the light of these accurate claims, what the Consumentenbond is demanding
might be an overreach. The consumer protection agency has requested that
Samsung updates all of its smartphones to the latest version of Android for
two years since the handset is purchased (not launched) and in less than
four weeks following code availability from Google.
In some ways, the Consumentenbond is demanding smartphone makers to treat
software updates like part of the warranty, which has its length mandated at
two years in the European Union.
While we would surely love to see it happening, such an obligation would
create a lot of problems for smartphone makers since they would have to
offer timely software updates for about four years (based on an average two-
year shelf life for most smartphones) for each smartphone. For the moment,
we'll fill this one under our "desirable but not likely" folder.
What do you guys think, wouldn't you love it if smartphone makers were
forced to offer timely software updates for two years after you've purchased
a handset?