![]() |
2010-12-12
, 09:50
|
Banned |
Posts: 974 |
Thanked: 622 times |
Joined on Oct 2010
|
#272
|
If you as a consumer begin to expect a product to EOSL one year after release then you're rewarding Nokia's bad behavior. Just because you have disposable income doesn't everyone can or even wants to buy a new phone that quickly.
When it comes to support, it is not unreasonable to have a company continue to provide adequate support at least ONE year AFTER the the follow-on product has released. Yes, this may seem strange and unreasonable to you, but it is normal for companies to continue to provide support for products even after the follow-on has released. NEVER have I heard it to be standard practice to EOSL a product before its follow-on has arrived. Now, you can argue the one year after, but at minimum you move into sustaining level support the day the follow-on arrives.
YES, this is NORMAL.
The assumption you also have is that the N900 was "feature complete" when it released and we know that it was beta at release. That's fine, but that doesn't mean you don't finish what you start. The fact that you would suggest that Nokia's behavior of moving quickly to sustaining level support at PR 1.3 with no more support updates 1 year after release has more to do with your desire to buy a new toy than most who desire to receive adequate support for the life of the product.
So let's say you don't like my sustaining level support after the follow-on (In this case the N9) releases. Let's take another example. Most cellphone plans are two years.
What does that mean? Carriers and manufactures expect a consumer to keep a phone for AT LEAST 2 years.
Now, some plans are one and some are three, but I think two years is a good median. If consumers are expected to be on contract with a phone for 2 years, it is not unreasonable for the handset manufacturer to continue to bring updates to products in that two year window as well. This is an industry standard.
One year to support a device is simply wrong. I hope you don't work for Nokia. Nokia needs consumer advocates that want the best for the customer and not those that try to squeeze the bottom line when its convenient for them to be lazy.
![]() |
2010-12-12
, 10:12
|
|
Posts: 1,338 |
Thanked: 1,055 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ California, USA / Jordan
|
#273
|
![]() |
2010-12-12
, 10:13
|
Posts: 515 |
Thanked: 259 times |
Joined on Jan 2010
|
#274
|
Nonsense! In Europe the average person gets a new phone every 9-15 months. And keep in mind, this is the average. A typical phone geek gets a new phone every month or even more often. This doesn't mean that some devices are kept longer than others (N900 vs iPhone for instance).
The contract enslavement is a US phenomenon, a small percentage of the total users and not at all representative of the average user.
![]() |
2010-12-12
, 10:43
|
Banned |
Posts: 974 |
Thanked: 622 times |
Joined on Oct 2010
|
#275
|
Let's think this through.
Does everyone buy the phone the day it releases? NO. The N900 is still actively being sold. Should support end now? NO. If today someone starts a 2 year contract in US or Europe or wherever, what expectations should there be for Nokia? I think the expectations are that they should support it for the life of the user's contract. If they stopped selling it tomorrow, then support should end two years after tomorrow.
BTW, your assertion that Vodaphone, Orange and T-Mobile don't have 2 year contracts outside the US is not true. Contracts are not specific to the US. Google it. The fact that the US leans heavily toward contracts does not mean contracts aren't used in other parts of the world.
![]() |
2010-12-12
, 11:00
|
|
Posts: 3,404 |
Thanked: 4,474 times |
Joined on Oct 2005
@ Germany
|
#276
|
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to pycage For This Useful Post: | ||
![]() |
2010-12-12
, 11:00
|
Posts: 2,829 |
Thanked: 1,459 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Finland
|
#277
|
![]() |
2010-12-12
, 11:06
|
|
Posts: 2,050 |
Thanked: 1,425 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Bucharest
|
#278
|
It appears on every spec page of the N900. No native MMS, no 3G video calls, no individual ringtone per contact, no text2speech engine for reading text messages or announcing callers' names, OS only designed for landscape orientation, no voice dialling, ...
![]() |
2010-12-12
, 11:34
|
Posts: 515 |
Thanked: 259 times |
Joined on Jan 2010
|
#279
|
![]() |
2010-12-12
, 12:41
|
|
Posts: 3,790 |
Thanked: 5,718 times |
Joined on Mar 2006
@ Vienna, Austria
|
#280
|
![]() |
Tags |
fat lady, hardly knew ya, ignore list, needs locking, troll party, trollercoaster, trolololo, wawawaaaa., whinge fest |
|
When it comes to support, it is not unreasonable to have a company continue to provide adequate support at least ONE year AFTER the the follow-on product has released. Yes, this may seem strange and unreasonable to you, but it is normal for companies to continue to provide support for products even after the follow-on has released. NEVER have I heard it to be standard practice to EOSL a product before its follow-on has arrived. Now, you can argue the one year after, but at minimum you move into sustaining level support the day the follow-on arrives.
YES, this is NORMAL.
The assumption you also have is that the N900 was "feature complete" when it released and we know that it was beta at release. That's fine, but that doesn't mean you don't finish what you start. The fact that you would suggest that Nokia's behavior of moving quickly to sustaining level support at PR 1.3 with no more support updates 1 year after release has more to do with your desire to buy a new toy than most who desire to receive adequate support for the life of the product.
So let's say you don't like my sustaining level support after the follow-on (In this case the N9) releases. Let's take another example. Most cellphone plans are two years.
What does that mean? Carriers and manufactures expect a consumer to keep a phone for AT LEAST 2 years.
Now, some plans are one and some are three, but I think two years is a good median. If consumers are expected to be on contract with a phone for 2 years, it is not unreasonable for the handset manufacturer to continue to bring updates to products in that two year window as well. This is an industry standard.
The fact of the matter is that you can't move into "sustaining level support" until you STOP selling a product, then starts the final 2 year that a consumer is EXPECTED to be on contract and the handset is ALSO expected to continue to provide support.
One year to support a device is simply wrong. I hope you don't work for Nokia. Nokia needs consumer advocates that want the best for the customer and not those that try to squeeze the bottom line when its convenient for them to be lazy.
Last edited by geohsia; 2010-12-12 at 09:48.