Behind the doors of the "kitchen" of the production of mobile devices
Recently, in RuNet, in general, and here, in Habré, in particular, disputes periodically flare up on the topic: “will there be or will not be released an update on the new mobile OS <nymerek> for already released devices?” as Google and Microsoft announce the release of new versions of their mobile OS. I deal with mobile devices (hereinafter - MU) professionally far from the first year and I know this kitchen from the inside. Therefore, many things that cause heated debate, personally seem to me obvious and generally have no meaning to the discussion. I want to share some knowledge with a respected habouros community, so that someone could calm down the ardor and look at life with a more sober look.
To make it easier to understand the place in the mobile market of each of the companies, I propose to begin with to paint abstract "roles" - a certain set of characteristics and actions that reflect each specific moment in the life of the MU. Each particular firm can play several roles in the market, and maybe only one, but understanding of each of these roles is necessary if we want to understand the whole chain of “who owes what to whom”. In the same way as any light can be decomposed into a spectrum, we will try to expand the activities of companies operating in the MU market into key components.
In Apple’s birthplace, the balance of forces is the simplest: almost all of the roles — apart from the “Producer of MU” - Apple itself performs. They themselves develop the OS, they themselves develop the design of their devices. They sell their products under their own brand Apple either in their own trade network or through the trade network of the mobile network operator. Trading through the operator is simpler (the devices are sold with operator contracts are much cheaper and better, and at the same time the issue of after-sales support is solved), and trading in your own trading network is prestigious. Apple does not shy away from either the first or second option. Having full control over the entire production process of MU from the idea to the sale, Apple itself can fulfill any whim. By introducing certain restrictions, Apple is fully aware of their consequences and can monitor these effects quite clearly. As a result, Apple can afford what other players cannot afford - to dictate their game conditions to the market. We will talk about this a little later ...
')
The main role of Google in the mobile market is “vendor OS”. Additional combined roles - "Software Store Holder" and "Service Provider" (we are talking about Google Play, Gmail, Google Search, etc.) Moreover, Google does not impose this second role. If OEM wants to release a “naked” Android - please! Do yourself an email client (if you need one), your own app store (as in Pocketbook e-books on Android) - and a mobile OS can be free for you. This moment is very important! In the mobile market, in fact, in parallel there are two different armies: (1) real Google-backgrounds, which contain both Google Play, and Gmail and all other services; (2) “wild” Androids that can be anything from cheap smartphones to e-books with Wi-Fi and the Internet. And the whole zoo by some analysts (when required by the historical moment) is combined into a single figure.
But the most important thing that you need to absolutely understand is that Google itself never produces a device. Even if they brand a certain device with their name and launch it into the market as a “reference” - anyway, its initial design, internal design, creation of drivers for the chipset, general OS assembly and final debugging are done by the manufacturer of the ME. Those. this is not the same ODM contract that Apple has with Foxconn; here we are talking more about branding and appropriate marketing support than about full ODM. Although Google Nexus sales go under the control of Google itself.
In all other cases, the OEM manufacturer receives from Google the operating system in exactly the same mode as it receives all the other spare parts for the manufacture of the device - as a set of separate modules. To get a ready-made firmware image in ROM, the manufacturer must add drivers for his specific equipment to these modules, add additional software that he considers necessary to use, and then debug and test this assembly. The more additional software the OEM uses in the device, the longer the process of firmware testing takes place, this is obvious, KMK. What version of the mobile OS is used at the same time - it does not matter much, because the process does not change.
At first glance, the relationship between Microsoft and manufacturers of MU is similar to the relationship with Google, but there are a number of seemingly minor, but very important differences.
The first. Everyone is well aware that Microsoft greatly limits ALL manufacturers in terms of possible customization and device changes, allowing it to be done only to a certain minimum extent (as Google does when ordering DETAILED Nexus devices). But at the same time, the fact that the entire burden of production costs for MUs, its sales and post-sales support lies entirely on the manufacturer is practically not advertised, and Microsoft doesn’t participate in the production process with its money (except for the mobile OS licenses, of course). To support MU's sales, Microsoft can, of course, help with marketing, by organizing joint PR campaigns, or it may not help ...
The second. In addition to the fact that the manufacturer is very limited in its ability to add its software, it is also strictly forbidden to change anything in the most mobile OS from Microsoft, and even more so, to touch the holy-saints - the interface. Those. the freedom that the manufacturer has when using Google Android with services like Google Play (“I don’t like the Shell - I'll throw it out, add my own, the device will be cheaper!”), in this case it’s not even implied.
Here you can add significant restrictions on the appearance of MU, and previously existing severe restrictions on the internal equipment of MU.
The result is the fact that almost all devices based on Windows Phone 7 look like twin brothers, made with one hand. In other words, when interacting with Microsoft, the manufacturer is in a strange state between OEM and ODM. It seems that he sells the devices himself, and he does everything himself, but he does everything on the orders of the “Big Brother”, and neither the step nor the left nor the right. And all the financial risks in this case, the manufacturer bears himself alone. And alongside are in the line still the same "brothers in misfortune," making the exact same devices, and dancing to the exact same tune, but these are your enemies, and you must replay them. Isn't this the reason why manufacturers of MUs one by one turn away from Microsoft?
In terms of organizing the production process, interaction with Microsoft for the manufacturer is exactly the same as in partnership with Google. The mobile OS also comes in the form of a set of separate software modules, to which you still need to add your drivers, applications, build a ROM, test it, detect bugs, test again, and only then start up in production. When the ROM is ready, the manufacturer also sends it to the Technical Approve to the OS vendor - Microsoft in this case.
There is nothing special to say, except for stating the simple fact that over the past few years this (previously) highly respected company has lost most of the roles listed at the outset in the smartphone market, having failed to compete in the competitive struggle to ensure the life of its own mobile OS and almost roll back to level "ODM-manufacturer MU". Why "almost"? Because in fact, the ODM-maker of smartphones based on Windows Phone 7 for Nokia is Compal, a Chinese factory. The same factory, as far as I can tell, developed the device itself (Nokia, except that the device was filled with software). Thus, the role of Nokia in the case of Windows Phone smartphones is reduced to a greater extent to the “Trademark Holder”.
Yes, Nokia is still developing and producing many different mobile devices in the middle and lower price range. Yes, the company has a number of its own service development - OVI store, Nokia Navigation, for example. But seeing the speed with which the company loses its position on the main fronts, the prospects for the development of these industries are seen as very pessimistic.
You can talk about this company for a very long time and very much, but in the context of this conversation it is important to understand that the company itself is striving to play as many roles as possible on the MU market, right up to OS Vendor, if you recall their own development - Bada.
As one good friend of mine said: “Where there is money in the market, there is Samsung!”
The author does not set out to give a balance for all players in the mobile market. I just wanted to give an understanding - some kind of a tool with which any participant can be decomposed “into playing roles” and understand his real position in the market. If you master this system of coordinates, you can spend time with great benefit, laying out the role of each of the market players ... This is how to deal with a puppet doll and understand which thread controls which part of the body of the doll.
Having dealt with this issue, you can proceed to the main part of our conversation ...
Although we already mentioned a little bit earlier about the organization of the MU production process, I want to remind one common truth: “THERE IS NOTHING FREE FOR THIS LIGHT!” Why am I doing this? What I mean is that so many users believe that everything should be theirs ... "The manufacturer owes that ..." "The manufacturer owes it ..."
The manufacturer of the mobile device you purchased is responsible to you within:
It is also very important to clearly understand who exactly undertakes the obligations of post-sales support of the device you purchased? If you are buying a device that looks like an iPhone from the Kurskiy station, you expect to be waited with open arms at the Apple Service Center, then, as they say, I have bad news for you ... I repeat again: read the documents!
So what should the manufacturer MU ow you? If we speak briefly and skip all the conclusions, then, if not stated otherwise, the manufacturer bears only one responsibility before you: so that the functionality stated at the sale works accordingly. Moreover, very often the seller’s obligations are limited to the region of sale, as a result, a device purchased in Dubai DutyFree will not be serviced free of charge in the Russian SC of the same company.
Why am I telling these common truths? I am telling all this to the fact that only in Apple's documentation with commitments I saw a clause that directly stated that the company undertakes to provide the user with all updates within the OS version from which the phone was purchased, plus the first version of the next ! In no other documentation (for other mobile devices) I have encountered any such items. Therefore, the thesis: "The manufacturer must support its users, and therefore must release updates" - does not hold water.
To prepare an update for release, the manufacturer needs to reassemble the entire team of engineers who prepared the device for release, and re-go all the way to prepare the software part of the MU from the OS build from the original modules and thorough testing to the release of the finished ROM version. At the same time, the amount of work is comparable to the amount of work in preparation for the initial release (well, maybe a little bit less). It takes far more than one day (even for the “easiest” case - not less than a month) for a team of several dozen people. And these are not cheap experts like “I can dig - I can and don’t dig”, but rather highly qualified engineers. Those. only one salary for this team will cost a lot of money.
The second point is that the work of this team will go to the “net expense”, because, unlike the initial training, it will not give direct profit, because the device has already been sold, the money for it has already been received and put into circulation. Moreover, workers for this team will have to be removed from other projects to prepare new devices for release, postponing the receipt of profits from the release of new devices.
Yes, when drawing up a financial plan for the entire life of the device, an honest and responsible manufacturer of MU plans to release updates in advance, but this is always an update within the current version. Those. everyone understands that it is simply impossible to release a completely bug-free and trouble-free device in real time. And there will always be problems that appear only during intensive use - it is up to the solution of these problems that updates are planned. But releasing a fix for a specific application is a much less expensive project than issuing a full update. Ready and debugged project is on the build server - only one application is updated, - build - only one application is being tested - release. Even if the corrections are not one, but several, the situation is only slightly complicated. As long as the device “lives” - no one touches this build server; only after the end of the device’s lifetime (the completion of sales and the support period) does the build server remove. And in order to release an update to a new version, such a server should be fostered next to the existing one, and so that it lives in parallel.
Another costly item is the cost of updating the licenses for the mobile OS. There is a “dark forest” with accurate and reliable information due to the fact that OS vendors (that Microsoft, Google) and the Manufacturers of MU themselves carefully hide it. For large players, the terms of the contract can vary greatly. And the more devices the Manufacturer manufactures, the more preferential these conditions can be. But in any case, it is always a secret sealed, "so that competitors do not know." However, some information still leaks out to the public.
For example, no secret is the fact that under the terms of the licensed policy of Microsoft, the manufacturer can release any updates within the already purchased version of the mobile OS - for free, but if he plans to release updates for the same device, but already on the next version of the mobile OS then he will need to pay the entire amount of licenses again. This rule has always worked for the Windows Mobile platform (there have been, however, short-term promotions, but now we will not talk about them) and is now valid for devices based on Windows CE. How does this process occur on Windows Phone? I will not say for sure, for I simply don’t know. Considering that far from being a brilliant position that WinPhone now has, we can assume that the company will be quite flexible in licensing matters.
As far as I know, Google has no complaints against the Manufacturer when updating OS versions. For all the existence of this OS, I have never heard that it comes about some kind of payment for updates. Maybe this explains a little “love” for Google from manufacturers of MUs and such a rapid growth in the market share of devices with this OS?
Another possible “stop” moment in the preparation of updates is the licensing terms for the manufacturer of third-party applications that have been integrated into the firmware of the device. As a rule, for each pre-integrated application, the Manufacturer pays to the Independent Software Developer some license fees (which, of course, are included in the final cost of the device). The trick is that a contract for licensing such software can only allow its use on a certain device and only within a certain version of the mobile OS. Readers from the ranks of programmers will understand perfectly where this condition comes from: a new OS = possible complete reworking of software = additional costs not accounted for in the initial contract. And one of the most important rules that all manufacturers of MU try to adhere to: when releasing updates, there should be no deterioration in user characteristics of the device (in order to avoid complaints from end users). It turns out that sometimes the release of the update is delayed, in particular, due to the unreadiness of some small third-party utility in the overall composition of the mobile device software.
Based on the above, it becomes clear that, in general, it is not profitable for a manufacturer to release updates in general. Each update release is a cost, moreover, the cost is obviously non-payable in the framework of the current project, if we are talking about updates that are not planned at the beginning of the device launch into production. Such costs the manufacturer is forced to pay back, increasing the cost of the following models. And so - to infinity. That is the business.
However, the manufacturer releases updates. Why does he do it? Why go to these expenses? If we are talking about scheduled updates, then it is understandable. By releasing them, the manufacturer tries to anticipate possible claims from end users. But why release updates to newer OS versions? By and large, there are two main reasons for this:
Firstly, OS Vendor, as the person most interested in updating the fleet of MUs, can in every way encourage the Manufacturer to release updates. “In every way” - in the financial sense, including, i.e. offering preferential license terms for these upgrades. For example, for a number of HTC devices - Tytan, P4350, Athena, s620 & Artemis - there was a special offer where users could upgrade their devices from WinMobile 5.x to WinMobile 6.0 for free! True, this offer was valid for a limited time and at the moment all these ROMs have already been removed from official resources from free access. In addition to such direct methods of influence, methods of indirect pressure are also possible. This is exactly how Google acts: by publicly announcing the release of a new version of the OS, it exposes manufacturers as “progress brakes” who do not want to release such a new and wonderful version on their devices.
Secondly, the manufacturer can, with the release of an update with a new version of the OS, support the sales of some already successful and multi-selling device (if other projects are not affected, of course). The release of the latest version of the OS for the device can have a very positive impact on sales. The seller can say to the potential buyer: “Take this machine! It is relevant now, and an update has already been announced for it with the next version of the OS! ”Why do we need a“ new OS version ”for this customer - he himself doesn’t know, but the potential purchase immediately acquires additional advantages!
These two reasons seem most likely to me personally. The option “support the loyalty of users who have already bought the device earlier” does not seem convincing to me for several reasons. (a) It is not profitable for the manufacturer to have the user use the same device for a long time, it is much more profitable for the user to buy and buy all new manufactured devices. (b) By issuing an update, the Manufacturer not only tries not to reduce the original functionality, but DO NOT ADD a new one, so as not to create competition for “fresh” devices. (c) In whatever form the update is released, there will always be dissatisfied users. Who "did not add new features," who "was more comfortable before," etc. The trick is that whatever the change, users are always unhappy, so the easiest thing is to do nothing. They will be dissatisfied with the fact that you are not doing anything, but at the same time you are not carrying any costs. ;)
In conclusion of this lengthy publication I would like to repeat my key thoughts again ...
For now. Write, ask if something is unclear.
Roles in the mobile industry
To make it easier to understand the place in the mobile market of each of the companies, I propose to begin with to paint abstract "roles" - a certain set of characteristics and actions that reflect each specific moment in the life of the MU. Each particular firm can play several roles in the market, and maybe only one, but understanding of each of these roles is necessary if we want to understand the whole chain of “who owes what to whom”. In the same way as any light can be decomposed into a spectrum, we will try to expand the activities of companies operating in the MU market into key components.
- An OS vendor is a company that develops the operating system itself, documentation for it, its maintenance, and so on.
- The developer of the MU - those who develop the entire technical design of the MU. There are quite a lot of companies in the world that can develop MUs to your order, or already have a portfolio of pre-designed blanks on which, if the customer wishes, you can pull on a particular OS. You will be surprised, but a significant number of devices sold now under eminent brands, developed by small and little-known companies like this: bSquare .
- Manufacturer MU - the so-called. "factory". It is important to distinguish between two main types of manufacturers:
- OEM-manufacturer MU is the factory that makes its own devices based on the mobile OS.
- ODM-manufacturer MU - the factory that simply produces MU, developed by someone. Everyone knows very well that the Apple and the iPad are made by Foxconn, a Chinese factory, on Apple’s order. This is the “classic ODM”, when the manufacturer has no rights, does not conduct any other activity itself, except for the round-the-clock, round-the-month and year-round production of the MU for the customer.
- A Trademark Holder is one who owns the right to a name and on whose behalf the sale of the MU is made. Many probably still remember the device brand "i-mate" or "Qtek" - this is just it.
- Trading network - it is clear ... those who are directly involved in the MU trade. We have a lot of such and they play a very prominent role in the MU market: Euroset, Svyaznoy, Alt-Telecom, etc. In Europe, for example, there are practically no such retailers that operate relatively independently; mobile operators are replacing them all.
- Post-sale support - who provides after-sales support of MU (warranty and post-warranty repair). In most cases, such support is carried out by firms that received authorization from the trademark holder: “Pupkin & Co., CJSC, authorized by Apple Inc.
- The holder of an additional software store - recently the market has very clearly realized the importance of this role, the amount of money that lies in this piece of the market, and everyone now wants to eat this piece of cake.
- The service provider is the one who provides this or that service to the user of the MU. In particular, the mobile operator provides mobile communication and mobile Internet services.
The balance of power in the camp of the iPhone
In Apple’s birthplace, the balance of forces is the simplest: almost all of the roles — apart from the “Producer of MU” - Apple itself performs. They themselves develop the OS, they themselves develop the design of their devices. They sell their products under their own brand Apple either in their own trade network or through the trade network of the mobile network operator. Trading through the operator is simpler (the devices are sold with operator contracts are much cheaper and better, and at the same time the issue of after-sales support is solved), and trading in your own trading network is prestigious. Apple does not shy away from either the first or second option. Having full control over the entire production process of MU from the idea to the sale, Apple itself can fulfill any whim. By introducing certain restrictions, Apple is fully aware of their consequences and can monitor these effects quite clearly. As a result, Apple can afford what other players cannot afford - to dictate their game conditions to the market. We will talk about this a little later ...
')
Google Empire
The main role of Google in the mobile market is “vendor OS”. Additional combined roles - "Software Store Holder" and "Service Provider" (we are talking about Google Play, Gmail, Google Search, etc.) Moreover, Google does not impose this second role. If OEM wants to release a “naked” Android - please! Do yourself an email client (if you need one), your own app store (as in Pocketbook e-books on Android) - and a mobile OS can be free for you. This moment is very important! In the mobile market, in fact, in parallel there are two different armies: (1) real Google-backgrounds, which contain both Google Play, and Gmail and all other services; (2) “wild” Androids that can be anything from cheap smartphones to e-books with Wi-Fi and the Internet. And the whole zoo by some analysts (when required by the historical moment) is combined into a single figure.
But the most important thing that you need to absolutely understand is that Google itself never produces a device. Even if they brand a certain device with their name and launch it into the market as a “reference” - anyway, its initial design, internal design, creation of drivers for the chipset, general OS assembly and final debugging are done by the manufacturer of the ME. Those. this is not the same ODM contract that Apple has with Foxconn; here we are talking more about branding and appropriate marketing support than about full ODM. Although Google Nexus sales go under the control of Google itself.
In all other cases, the OEM manufacturer receives from Google the operating system in exactly the same mode as it receives all the other spare parts for the manufacture of the device - as a set of separate modules. To get a ready-made firmware image in ROM, the manufacturer must add drivers for his specific equipment to these modules, add additional software that he considers necessary to use, and then debug and test this assembly. The more additional software the OEM uses in the device, the longer the process of firmware testing takes place, this is obvious, KMK. What version of the mobile OS is used at the same time - it does not matter much, because the process does not change.
Microsoft and partners
At first glance, the relationship between Microsoft and manufacturers of MU is similar to the relationship with Google, but there are a number of seemingly minor, but very important differences.
The first. Everyone is well aware that Microsoft greatly limits ALL manufacturers in terms of possible customization and device changes, allowing it to be done only to a certain minimum extent (as Google does when ordering DETAILED Nexus devices). But at the same time, the fact that the entire burden of production costs for MUs, its sales and post-sales support lies entirely on the manufacturer is practically not advertised, and Microsoft doesn’t participate in the production process with its money (except for the mobile OS licenses, of course). To support MU's sales, Microsoft can, of course, help with marketing, by organizing joint PR campaigns, or it may not help ...
The second. In addition to the fact that the manufacturer is very limited in its ability to add its software, it is also strictly forbidden to change anything in the most mobile OS from Microsoft, and even more so, to touch the holy-saints - the interface. Those. the freedom that the manufacturer has when using Google Android with services like Google Play (“I don’t like the Shell - I'll throw it out, add my own, the device will be cheaper!”), in this case it’s not even implied.
Here you can add significant restrictions on the appearance of MU, and previously existing severe restrictions on the internal equipment of MU.
The result is the fact that almost all devices based on Windows Phone 7 look like twin brothers, made with one hand. In other words, when interacting with Microsoft, the manufacturer is in a strange state between OEM and ODM. It seems that he sells the devices himself, and he does everything himself, but he does everything on the orders of the “Big Brother”, and neither the step nor the left nor the right. And all the financial risks in this case, the manufacturer bears himself alone. And alongside are in the line still the same "brothers in misfortune," making the exact same devices, and dancing to the exact same tune, but these are your enemies, and you must replay them. Isn't this the reason why manufacturers of MUs one by one turn away from Microsoft?
In terms of organizing the production process, interaction with Microsoft for the manufacturer is exactly the same as in partnership with Google. The mobile OS also comes in the form of a set of separate software modules, to which you still need to add your drivers, applications, build a ROM, test it, detect bugs, test again, and only then start up in production. When the ROM is ready, the manufacturer also sends it to the Technical Approve to the OS vendor - Microsoft in this case.
About Nokia
There is nothing special to say, except for stating the simple fact that over the past few years this (previously) highly respected company has lost most of the roles listed at the outset in the smartphone market, having failed to compete in the competitive struggle to ensure the life of its own mobile OS and almost roll back to level "ODM-manufacturer MU". Why "almost"? Because in fact, the ODM-maker of smartphones based on Windows Phone 7 for Nokia is Compal, a Chinese factory. The same factory, as far as I can tell, developed the device itself (Nokia, except that the device was filled with software). Thus, the role of Nokia in the case of Windows Phone smartphones is reduced to a greater extent to the “Trademark Holder”.
Yes, Nokia is still developing and producing many different mobile devices in the middle and lower price range. Yes, the company has a number of its own service development - OVI store, Nokia Navigation, for example. But seeing the speed with which the company loses its position on the main fronts, the prospects for the development of these industries are seen as very pessimistic.
About Samsung
You can talk about this company for a very long time and very much, but in the context of this conversation it is important to understand that the company itself is striving to play as many roles as possible on the MU market, right up to OS Vendor, if you recall their own development - Bada.
As one good friend of mine said: “Where there is money in the market, there is Samsung!”
… so,
The author does not set out to give a balance for all players in the mobile market. I just wanted to give an understanding - some kind of a tool with which any participant can be decomposed “into playing roles” and understand his real position in the market. If you master this system of coordinates, you can spend time with great benefit, laying out the role of each of the market players ... This is how to deal with a puppet doll and understand which thread controls which part of the body of the doll.
Having dealt with this issue, you can proceed to the main part of our conversation ...
How is the release of updates for MU
Although we already mentioned a little bit earlier about the organization of the MU production process, I want to remind one common truth: “THERE IS NOTHING FREE FOR THIS LIGHT!” Why am I doing this? What I mean is that so many users believe that everything should be theirs ... "The manufacturer owes that ..." "The manufacturer owes it ..."
What do you need the manufacturer MU?
The manufacturer of the mobile device you purchased is responsible to you within:
- Supplied with warranty device
- The laws of the country in which the sale transaction was made.
It is also very important to clearly understand who exactly undertakes the obligations of post-sales support of the device you purchased? If you are buying a device that looks like an iPhone from the Kurskiy station, you expect to be waited with open arms at the Apple Service Center, then, as they say, I have bad news for you ... I repeat again: read the documents!
So what should the manufacturer MU ow you? If we speak briefly and skip all the conclusions, then, if not stated otherwise, the manufacturer bears only one responsibility before you: so that the functionality stated at the sale works accordingly. Moreover, very often the seller’s obligations are limited to the region of sale, as a result, a device purchased in Dubai DutyFree will not be serviced free of charge in the Russian SC of the same company.
Why am I telling these common truths? I am telling all this to the fact that only in Apple's documentation with commitments I saw a clause that directly stated that the company undertakes to provide the user with all updates within the OS version from which the phone was purchased, plus the first version of the next ! In no other documentation (for other mobile devices) I have encountered any such items. Therefore, the thesis: "The manufacturer must support its users, and therefore must release updates" - does not hold water.
What does it mean for a manufacturer to “release an update”?
To prepare an update for release, the manufacturer needs to reassemble the entire team of engineers who prepared the device for release, and re-go all the way to prepare the software part of the MU from the OS build from the original modules and thorough testing to the release of the finished ROM version. At the same time, the amount of work is comparable to the amount of work in preparation for the initial release (well, maybe a little bit less). It takes far more than one day (even for the “easiest” case - not less than a month) for a team of several dozen people. And these are not cheap experts like “I can dig - I can and don’t dig”, but rather highly qualified engineers. Those. only one salary for this team will cost a lot of money.
The second point is that the work of this team will go to the “net expense”, because, unlike the initial training, it will not give direct profit, because the device has already been sold, the money for it has already been received and put into circulation. Moreover, workers for this team will have to be removed from other projects to prepare new devices for release, postponing the receipt of profits from the release of new devices.
Yes, when drawing up a financial plan for the entire life of the device, an honest and responsible manufacturer of MU plans to release updates in advance, but this is always an update within the current version. Those. everyone understands that it is simply impossible to release a completely bug-free and trouble-free device in real time. And there will always be problems that appear only during intensive use - it is up to the solution of these problems that updates are planned. But releasing a fix for a specific application is a much less expensive project than issuing a full update. Ready and debugged project is on the build server - only one application is updated, - build - only one application is being tested - release. Even if the corrections are not one, but several, the situation is only slightly complicated. As long as the device “lives” - no one touches this build server; only after the end of the device’s lifetime (the completion of sales and the support period) does the build server remove. And in order to release an update to a new version, such a server should be fostered next to the existing one, and so that it lives in parallel.
About the cost of licenses
Another costly item is the cost of updating the licenses for the mobile OS. There is a “dark forest” with accurate and reliable information due to the fact that OS vendors (that Microsoft, Google) and the Manufacturers of MU themselves carefully hide it. For large players, the terms of the contract can vary greatly. And the more devices the Manufacturer manufactures, the more preferential these conditions can be. But in any case, it is always a secret sealed, "so that competitors do not know." However, some information still leaks out to the public.
For example, no secret is the fact that under the terms of the licensed policy of Microsoft, the manufacturer can release any updates within the already purchased version of the mobile OS - for free, but if he plans to release updates for the same device, but already on the next version of the mobile OS then he will need to pay the entire amount of licenses again. This rule has always worked for the Windows Mobile platform (there have been, however, short-term promotions, but now we will not talk about them) and is now valid for devices based on Windows CE. How does this process occur on Windows Phone? I will not say for sure, for I simply don’t know. Considering that far from being a brilliant position that WinPhone now has, we can assume that the company will be quite flexible in licensing matters.
As far as I know, Google has no complaints against the Manufacturer when updating OS versions. For all the existence of this OS, I have never heard that it comes about some kind of payment for updates. Maybe this explains a little “love” for Google from manufacturers of MUs and such a rapid growth in the market share of devices with this OS?
Another possible “stop” moment in the preparation of updates is the licensing terms for the manufacturer of third-party applications that have been integrated into the firmware of the device. As a rule, for each pre-integrated application, the Manufacturer pays to the Independent Software Developer some license fees (which, of course, are included in the final cost of the device). The trick is that a contract for licensing such software can only allow its use on a certain device and only within a certain version of the mobile OS. Readers from the ranks of programmers will understand perfectly where this condition comes from: a new OS = possible complete reworking of software = additional costs not accounted for in the initial contract. And one of the most important rules that all manufacturers of MU try to adhere to: when releasing updates, there should be no deterioration in user characteristics of the device (in order to avoid complaints from end users). It turns out that sometimes the release of the update is delayed, in particular, due to the unreadiness of some small third-party utility in the overall composition of the mobile device software.
Why are manufacturers still releasing updates?
Based on the above, it becomes clear that, in general, it is not profitable for a manufacturer to release updates in general. Each update release is a cost, moreover, the cost is obviously non-payable in the framework of the current project, if we are talking about updates that are not planned at the beginning of the device launch into production. Such costs the manufacturer is forced to pay back, increasing the cost of the following models. And so - to infinity. That is the business.
However, the manufacturer releases updates. Why does he do it? Why go to these expenses? If we are talking about scheduled updates, then it is understandable. By releasing them, the manufacturer tries to anticipate possible claims from end users. But why release updates to newer OS versions? By and large, there are two main reasons for this:
Firstly, OS Vendor, as the person most interested in updating the fleet of MUs, can in every way encourage the Manufacturer to release updates. “In every way” - in the financial sense, including, i.e. offering preferential license terms for these upgrades. For example, for a number of HTC devices - Tytan, P4350, Athena, s620 & Artemis - there was a special offer where users could upgrade their devices from WinMobile 5.x to WinMobile 6.0 for free! True, this offer was valid for a limited time and at the moment all these ROMs have already been removed from official resources from free access. In addition to such direct methods of influence, methods of indirect pressure are also possible. This is exactly how Google acts: by publicly announcing the release of a new version of the OS, it exposes manufacturers as “progress brakes” who do not want to release such a new and wonderful version on their devices.
Secondly, the manufacturer can, with the release of an update with a new version of the OS, support the sales of some already successful and multi-selling device (if other projects are not affected, of course). The release of the latest version of the OS for the device can have a very positive impact on sales. The seller can say to the potential buyer: “Take this machine! It is relevant now, and an update has already been announced for it with the next version of the OS! ”Why do we need a“ new OS version ”for this customer - he himself doesn’t know, but the potential purchase immediately acquires additional advantages!
These two reasons seem most likely to me personally. The option “support the loyalty of users who have already bought the device earlier” does not seem convincing to me for several reasons. (a) It is not profitable for the manufacturer to have the user use the same device for a long time, it is much more profitable for the user to buy and buy all new manufactured devices. (b) By issuing an update, the Manufacturer not only tries not to reduce the original functionality, but DO NOT ADD a new one, so as not to create competition for “fresh” devices. (c) In whatever form the update is released, there will always be dissatisfied users. Who "did not add new features," who "was more comfortable before," etc. The trick is that whatever the change, users are always unhappy, so the easiest thing is to do nothing. They will be dissatisfied with the fact that you are not doing anything, but at the same time you are not carrying any costs. ;)
Conclusion
In conclusion of this lengthy publication I would like to repeat my key thoughts again ...
- Each player in the market has its own role. Understanding "who is who", you can give a correct assessment of the words that sound from a particular office. When Google declares: “We have released a new version of the OS” - this means only the readiness of source codes from “OS vendor” for transfer to partners - “Manufacturers of MU”, and no more.
- Know how to shop properly! When giving money, make sure that your expectations correspond to reality, and your device will really be repaired in an authorized SC, and not uncle Vasya in the gateway.
- In the general case, unless otherwise stated, the manufacturer of the MU is obliged to you only one thing: to ensure the operation of the device in accordance with the characteristics declared at the sale, and nothing more. “Nobody promised to feed them on the way,” says the old joke.
- The release of any update for MU is a very expensive project. The manufacturer must have very good reasons to go for it. And until the official confirmation from the manufacturer has been received, you shouldn’t trust the rumors and speculation. Whoever declares what - the final word will be for those who bear the main costs.
For now. Write, ask if something is unclear.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/143711/
All Articles