View Single Post
danramos's Avatar
Posts: 4,672 | Thanked: 5,455 times | Joined on Jul 2008 @ Springfield, MA, USA
#187
Originally Posted by Laughing Man View Post
The only problem I've found with that situation (although it's also a pro) is the..

a) When Google releases an update, it's up to the manufacturers to push the update (granted what Google releases is only for their development phone). So manufactuerers are still in charge of deciding to provide you with an update.

b) Not all the phones have access to that crazy hacking party (correct me if I'm wrong). I think it's mainly the large releases that are well publicized (Droid, Galaxy S, Evo 4G). Not sure how the rooting and flashing custom ROMs work with the lesser known devices. Then you have companies like (Motorola?) pulling that chip stunt (though I've read that root access is now possible but not flashing ROMs).

To be fair fatalsaint, you used the G1, which was Google's first development phone. Then I think they switched to the Nexus One. The modern Android phones pack quite a punch hardware wise. That combined with the optimization in Froyo should solve some of the problems you had.



I'm going hold you to that. =P
I don't know of too many phones that can't be rooted and most are able to have their ROM flashed.

You want a flash rooted Droid X, despite the chip signature crap? BOOM! Done.
http://slashdot.org/submission/1305286/

Even XBOX touted their UNCRACKABLE protection scheme and had it cracked before it even hit store shelves.

At any rate, the value here is that people are able to get what they want out of their Android devices despite the hardware manufacturer. Nokia seems to be doing a lot of the same. So, I don't see much difference. If I had to put money into it, I'd rather go with the one with the more satisfying experience overall (apps, cusstomer service, parts, replacement, walk-in presence, etc.)
 

The Following User Says Thank You to danramos For This Useful Post: