My original intention of this post was really to see if people would pay for MAJOR software updates. ie Maemo 6 back ported and available on N900.

But have left it more broad to see what thoughts were out there. I'm not clear in my mind how much responsibility a Device manufacturer has in continuing to offer updates on devices as they get older. On the other hand there has not been a paid option on Nokia devices to date, and I actually think that Apple have been wise to offer a paid option even for three year old devices. It keeps them in the applications eco-system, which in turn creates a positive spiral for Apps developers.

Well let me put it like this:
Nokia is using mostly Linux to create Maemo. Linux is maintained by various organizations, saving Nokia big money. I'll be damned if they suddenly start charging me for device support. And if the N900 meets the hardware requirements, there shouldn't be any extra development costs to get it to run Maemo 6. Now if you mean forcing them to lower the hardware requirements of Maemo 6 to make the N900 compatible, I'm against anything of the sort.

I wouldn't use Apple as any kind of example. The "legacy" devices they charge for updates are simply the same device, just with slightly slower hardware. There may be added support for new hardware, but the software has nothing revolutionary to preventing it from running on older hardware. They're just being predatory, just like blocking Flash in the browser to create the need for more apps.

Since they make money off of the apps, wouldn't it serve their best interests to allow those devices to run the newer OS? Since they enjoy massive record breaking profits, shouldn't they show some goodwill to consumers that create those profits and not charge them for filling the functionality holes in the OS? The predatory practices of Apple should be something Nokia avoids. As the market leader, they don't need such underhanded tactics. Nokia could theoretically lower device ownership costs for consumers. Apple has no interests at heart other than its own, which will soon be evident when they're the only mobile OS unwilling to allow a port of the Qt frameworks, Java, Silverlight, or Flash. Their motive is profits at the expense of the user's experience or access to technology or services. Nokia's history has been about enabling developers and services for greater consumer access.

So keep your Apple business models. They've had a decent two year run, but have done little to lowr Nokia from its throne. Linux allows them to save on development costs, and they're able to pass those savings on to us or reallocate the money to research and development and better services. What has Apple done with its profits to better the consumer experience, to allow greater access, or make their devices cheaper?

So naw, naw, HELL TO the NAW, I ain't paying. And any developer supporting an OS should run if the manufacturer forces such. An OS is a platform, and as long as that platform's hardware doesn't drastically change, neither will its software, so no cost should be needed. And unsupported outdated hardware should be repurposed for the lower end OSes. Let me install an open source Symbian on my older devices if the new OS is incompatible.

I'd be willing to pay $20 for major OS updates, say Fremantle to Harmattan on the N900, because (a) it's not really much money (I spend that much on a good lunch), and (b) I know it takes a lot of work to implement that.

You may think I'm one of those commercially minded closed source loving folk. I'm not; the openness, and the large proportion of open source used and available on the device is what attracts me to it, and I will be contributing to that. (I've been doing so for a long time, to some of those Linux components under the hood.)

The reason I don't mind paying a little is because I believe the job "make Harmattan work on the N900" is a big job that the open source unpaid volunteers will struggle to do.

It's one thing to say that it could be done for free and that's it's free software, but it's quite another to notice that unless Nokia's paid a huge amount of cash to staff and/or contractors to work on it full time, then it will likely never get done.

However, if they charged $20 and refused to provide properly open source licensed source code that can be obtained and shared freely, then I would object.

The conclusion from this is that I would be happy to find an "Update to Harmattan" "app" in Ovi store, and I'd pay that much for it and to know it is the officially packaged and supported (with warranty) version, but I would only be happy if I knew the open source components (at least) could be obtained elsewhere and redistributed as Free Software (the GNU meaning of Free).

In other words, despite knowing that I could get it (or most of it - those parts build on open source) for free elsewhere, I would actively choose to pay for the officially packaged version to support Nokia in this regard. As I said, $20 isn't that much.

They don't need our $20 because they're honest about their motives in maintaining and supporting these OSes. They stand to profit from the advertising and services markets, with Maemo and Symbian as the delivry systems. They'll make tons per device this way, so have no need to further gouge consumers. Once Qt is ported to another OS besides Maemo, Symbian, and WinMo, Nokia's services, Ovi Store, and devices will have massive reach and profitability.

I voted no, but I would be willing to pay $5 here and there for some added features. What those are I don't know, but if it was worth it, I wouldn't lose sleep over paying a little. A donation would be a better payment method. Some with give, most wont, but you're still getting something without making everyone angry about the "buggy phone".

now a donation is all good. But a required payment? They better not even think about it. Don't forget that in many countries, the mobile costs major money already, equal to months of wages. No reason this technology should only be for the rich. With the money they'll make from Ovi, their investment is recoupable.

I hope they're not planning on making money out of advertising or selling services to me. A part of the concept of 'free' is "freedom from" as well as "freedom to" and I'm happy to be free of advertising right now, and have no need for commercial services from Nokia. I would however be happy to cough up for a good Maps app.

I agree 100% but would like to also add that it a.so depends on the price. i mean people (mainly the private devs who make things happen like the guy who made petrovitch...KUDOS BTW) should recieve a profit for there hard work. but i cant see paying apple like expensive prices for software that should have been included in the phone. its not fair to sell a crapy product @ top dollar prices and then nickle and dime people to death to upgrade it. thats a apple thing. it is also disengenuous and un fair to the end consumer like my self who has been with nokia for over 10 years! and mainly becuase they dont nickle and dime me for things like nokia software updater! also symbian phones have a gazzillion apps for FREE! You should hear me clowning the apple guys and the motorola users and the blackberry folks for all they pay for simple things like nokia pc suit! I brought my phones from NOKIA for reasons like this.... dont unjustly charge me for upgrades unless u send me a 70dollar rebate for each phone i ever brought from nokia that they now charge for software upgrades.

Well Nokia doesn't require you to choose their services. And the advertising hasn't even begun yet. They've been pushing around the idea of subsidizing devices by allowing adware to run on your homescreen with carrier shared revenues, or you can opt out and avoid the ads and have no subsidy.

I'd pirate it if it was possible
İf not I'd ONLY buy it if it added a feature that I really wanted.