It's sad no fix was released, but I find it equally sad it was marked obsolete after just 2 years. Obsolete basically means: we don't care about this device anymore, buy a new one instead.
In a world where striving for lower environmental impact should become core business of every company and individual because sustaining the current lifestyle of many is going to severely damage the planet in one way or another, this is not the kind of sign major companies (and they pretty much all do it in the mobile business) should send into the world.
For a lot of people these companies are half gods, and what they do shall be believed in, it becomes part of their education. Making people believe buying devices and throwing them away after a just year or two is standard isn't exactly noble. Yeah yeah I know money is the driving factor behind companies, but that doesn't mean it cannot be combined with sending a 'greener' message into the world.
A good reason is the zero-bug policy. In my previous company, we introduced this policy to limit the expansion of the backlog. Project Managers have to close issues that they don't actually plan to tackle, which is a very difficult exercise in honesty and transparency, but which provides customers with visibility.
> Project Managers have to close issues that they don't actually plan to tackle, which is a very difficult exercise in honesty and transparency
I understand honesty, but I don't see how closing bugs makes it more transparent for the customers/users. Suppose there is such a bug you do not plan to fix. As a user, I can appreciate you stating that, but that does not mean the bug ceases to exist and should be hidden from the users' eyes.
A few years ago, there were dozens of little bugs in GNU/Linux that appeared only for some people some of the time. NVIDIA driver issues, keyboard backlight support, and so on. These were also of the kind where we couldn't expect an official fix, but still there was a Ubuntu wiki, Debian wiki, Arch wiki, Gentoo wiki and many other places where you could find a workaround for your specific bug.
To me, allowing "the community" to help itself on bugs that you do not plan to fix helps transparency much more than hiding your bug by setting it to "obsolete". It may not apply well to your particular company, but for Google's Android, a Linux distribution, it would be ideal.
You invest some time to fill the bug and then someone decides that it's obsolete. Then, if you still care, you reopen it? Is that right?
Now what message do I get from this besides: "We don't care about your shitty two year old phone. Buy a new one now. It will be shit again in just two years. And don't bother sending bug reports. We're in the business of selling phones not fixing bugs."
Yes, that's the honesty and transparency. The truth is that Google doesn't care; this bug isn't a priority. So the options available are 1) leave the bug open and ignore it or 2) be honest and close it as "obsolete"
Both options have the same result: no bugfix. However option #2 is a lot more transparent. Part of that transparency is your being aware that Google simply does not care.
Aren't we as consumers partly to blame as well? We want everything cheaper, and so that's what the corporations have given us.
10 years ago it wouldn't have been out of the question to pay $2000 for a 32" LCD TV, but now even paying $500 would seem steep. Sure costs have gone down due to the technology becoming more mature, but it seems that really people don't want to spend big bucks on anything now.
If Google offered a $1000 phone with guaranteed support and updates for 5 years would you buy it? Or instead buy a $500 phone now and another $500 phone in two years with whatever shiny new technology is available then?
Your post made me cringe because I mentally extrapolated the trend for cheap goods you set up onto everything else. Honestly I don't know if it would be for better or worse without living in such a world, but I cannot fathom disposable computers, high end electronics, or tools.
This also makes me worry about the concept of ownership. If we have no attachment to anything because the price is driven to zero, will that erode our values (craftmanship, upkeep, environmental stewardship, ...)? Sounds like a future full of walled gardens, shovelware, and products headed for the landfill.
You're late to the party there. Computing power is now stupidly cheap, much cheaper than any of the mechanical devices you need to interface with it.
This was most dramatically run home to me by my first Raspberry Pi, which cost me less than any of the peripherals I connect it to. Admittedly this is because I like having decent keyboards etc., but the interface is the hard part of the computing experience. Things that move are harder to build well than a few highly integrated circuits.
So yes, our computers have been disposable for a while already. EC2 delivered the killer blow at the other end of the spectrum.
It's a bit like asking if I'd want to use an Ipad 1 which is less than 5 years old. If Apple focused on iterating on iOS 5 and kept it running on an iPad 1, and all the developers in the world were developing for the iPad 1, I think we'd be much worse off. We also mustn't forget there's compounding development. i.e. if you have a 1-year release cycle on small updates (4 -> 4S, 5 -> 5S) and a 2-year release cycle for major updates, you compound developments much faster than a 5-year cycle as you can do mini-experiments every year, see how the response is and act on it. Touch ID is a great example, used as an alternative to unlocking with pin on the 5S, well received, then integrated into Apple Pay for in-store payments, appstore payments, paypal payments etc.
Does that mean we're 'to blame'? Well in a way, yes. But I don't really feel it's a big problem. It's a side-effect of something awesome: new technology iterating fast. If you compare mobile tech between 2008 - 2014, I'm pretty amazed. But you offered a pretty extreme 5-year case. I think most obviously would say no to that. But software problems being deprecated on a 2-year old phone (that should have already been resolved anyway) is pretty weak and I don't think it's got much to do with consumers. That's a business choice for which I think enough resources should be made available to fix, unless it's not important. But we're talking a Voip call for a smartphone here, it doesn't get much more elementary than that. It's just bad practice and I don't think we are to blame for that. I wouldn't expect a Voip call to echo madly from an HTC or Apple phone and then not get fixed in the 2 years after.
I know it's not feasible at present, but I'd like to imagine a smartphone that I could consider a high end professional tool. A device like that needs no software or UI changes outside of an occasional patch; hardware fast enough that I couldn't imagine a need for replacing it. A Thinkpad or Nikon, and just as much an extension of my person. Like vim, using the device would feel a bit like playing the piano--something I bend and mold, that also bends and molds me.
I'm not at all satisfied with this stuff yet--not to the level I described. Currently these phones are indespensible (much like trips to the dentist), but what I really want is for them to feel like an extension of my soul (like a fine car). Things are too buggy, too consumer, and moving much too fast. I imagine we'll eventually hit a plateau, because I want that phone.
I'm a bit skeptical that your comparison of to the ipad1 is a good one. After all you just compared (one of?) the first viable tablets from the very start of the tablet market where innovation/iteration was much higher to a smartphone that appeared 5 years into the smartphone era where innovation/cycle is now much lower.
You can still install the latest Android version via aftermarket firmware for the first Samsung Galaxy S1. That phone was released in June 2010, only two years into the smartphone era. It will turn 5 soon and still runs great. Only downside is its small system partitions.
Aren't we as consumers partly to blame as well? We want everything cheaper, and so that's what the corporations have given us.
That is certainly part of the problem - it's exactly this mentality shift especially in mobile I am considering wrong. But I am sort of biased, an outlier maybe so I cannot objectively tell if it really is wrong in general, or if that is just my opinionated view on it. Because in the last 10 years or so I have bought electronics, tools, components of all sorts for which I explicitely chose to buy the usually more expensive one from a reputable brand because I learned by experience it would not only serve me better but also last much longer, and I never regretted those decisions (just to name some concrete things: woodworking tools like circular saw/sanders/dust extractor, bycicle components, DSLR, music player, kitchen appliances, oscilloscope). But not a phone: too much choice and not enough information available so I cannot possibly tell if I got one it would serve me like 5 years or more. So I just got a rather cheap dumb phone hoping it would last.
I bought an N4 a few months ago to test Sailfish OS on. Works OK, the SFOS beta release Dec 11th fixed a lot of bugs. My problem is the N4's 3G & wifi reception are inferior compared to my 5yo N900.
There was a relevant article recently [1], [2] talking about similar issues & maker movement[3]. Also reminds me of camera manufacturers trying to stay on top of innovation by convincing customers to buy higher megapixels.
Let's not overreact. This is a bug report on an outdated phone and outdated operating system in a use case that will likely only be experienced by a very small subset of users. Should Google fix this? Probably. But that does't mean that not fixing it is a sign of fundamental problems with Google, the mobile industry, or consumer culture in general.
Yes maybe I am overreacting, but doesn't the simple fact a phone is considered outdated prove something is fundamentally wrong with mobile consumer 'I must have the latest' culture?
There are enough electronics and other branches in which 2 years is merely a fraction of the lifespan of the device or product, and it would be unseen if the company would end support for it that soon.
Sure, I expect my stereo, dishwasher, iron, dryer, electric shaver, alarm clock, and blender to work for more than two years. But how many of those devices would receive an update (or recall) to fix a bug that prevents the use of a single minor feature?
Your Nexus 4 doesn't stop working when it stops receiving updates. The closing of this bug doesn't mean your phone is less functional than it was yesterday. You are free to continue using the Nexus 4 tomorrow exactly as you have been for the last two years. This decision only means that Google is moving on to more pressing issues that either affect more users or have a bigger impact on their bottom line.
Sure, I expect my stereo, dishwasher, iron, dryer, electric shaver, alarm clock, and blender to work for more than two years. But how many of those devices would receive an update (or recall) to fix a bug that prevents the use of a single minor feature?
But we are not talking about such devices. We are talking about something that is nearly a general purpose computer and could have its software updated on millions of devices any time Google wants.
The problem is that there is an incentive for vendors to start ignoring devices when they are not sold anymore. First of all, it reduces maintenance costs. Secondly, it encourages people to buy a new device. However, one could question if this ethical in a time where there is scarcity and where we have to care for the environment. Especially for a device that is still perfectly capable (as I said in another comment, this is a device that is better spec'ed than the currently massively popular Moto G).
It's a bit unfair to pick on Google here, since they are at least providing Lollipop. There are many other two year-old phones that are still stuck on Jellybean. But I think that in general it is an issue that should concern us. I am hoping that at some point the EU will require vendors to provide at least security updates for some period (e.g. three years).
> Your Nexus 4 doesn't stop working when it stops receiving updates.
That would be the case if it were an isolated gadget. But a smartphone is a networked gadget; if it stops being updated while the world around it doesn't, it will gradually lose functionality. This could be seen in Ars Technica's long review of every Android version (http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/06/building-android-a-40...).
As an hypothetical example, imagine what if your phone could use only SSLv2, SSLv3, and optionally TLSv1, using a SSLv2-compatible handshake (this is the case with Windows XP, for instance), and a new TLS 1.3 were released which forbids servers from accepting SSLv2 handshakes (this is seriously being considered by the TLS standard developers). As servers upgrade to the new standard, your phone would lose the ability to connect to them.
And that's without considering security vulnerabilities. As time passes, more security vulnerabilities which affect your old phone are discovered and published, and without updates these vulnerabilities won't get fixed.
An outdated phone, that is still faster than e.g. Moto Gs that many people got as a Christmas present a week ago. I think it is a sign of fundamental problems with consumer culture if a two years old device that is perfectly capable and probably still used by hundreds of thousands or millions of people is considered obsolete.
Neither the phone nor the OS are obsolete as they're both in use and capable of easily matching any phone released today as far as functionality. Obsolete would be a phone that cannot run current applications due to hardware or software issues or whose functionality is far inferior (like having a VGA camera or similar), neither of which is the case here. It's not a sign of fundamental problems with Google supporting their own products, it's just another example amongst many.
Skype is a fairly popular application that is nearly unusable on this device because of the echo. I haven't had any of the other issues such as camera reboot. And I'm able to run the latest Android release. Overall I'm pleased with the phone except for this one issue.
In a world where striving for lower environmental impact should become core business of every company and individual because sustaining the current lifestyle of many is going to severely damage the planet in one way or another, this is not the kind of sign major companies (and they pretty much all do it in the mobile business) should send into the world.
For a lot of people these companies are half gods, and what they do shall be believed in, it becomes part of their education. Making people believe buying devices and throwing them away after a just year or two is standard isn't exactly noble. Yeah yeah I know money is the driving factor behind companies, but that doesn't mean it cannot be combined with sending a 'greener' message into the world.