cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Evo - a warning!

Highlighted
Patron

Evo - a warning!

Seems like Sprint is so pleased about how customers felt about the delayed Hero update that they are planning the same for the update of Evo to android 2.2

"

HTC EVO 4G Not Getting Flash Support Anytime Soon, Sprint Says"

http://www.devicemag.com/2010/05/14/htc-evo-4g-not-getting-flash-support-anytime-soon-sprint-says/

Beware - remember that old saying - do it to me once and it was a mistake...........LOL Sprint

Message was edited by: zdrman

21 REPLIES 21
Journeyman

Re: Evo - a warning!

Its funny how the article says adroid customers on sprint waited so long for 2.1 on the moment and hero.... I am still waiting for 2.1 on the Hero. Heck i'd be happy if a could get functional text messages working without having to hard reset my phone and delete everything all the time.

Thank you for posting this warning. Any Android user (sprint especially) should have to sign a disclaimer wrhen they buy the phones that say

" If you are not 100% happy with this phone as is then please dont buy it. Updates and bug fixes will be released at our convience regardless of public outcry. We have 1 guy in the company that works on and test software. If he takes a vacation or gets sick your phones will not get worked on. If we are releasing another model of phone this guy will no longer work on your model. We will release 1 tweet per quarter telling you to be patience. If you attempt to voice your displeasure on Sprint.com then either a moderator will delete your threads or a fanboy will blame you and HTC."

Its pretty bad when Sprint has made themselves the joke of tech blogs and web sites. Engadget, Boy Genius, Gizmodo, ect.... Whenever they write an article about sprint it always says something about poor updates and fixes and unhappy customers.

Highlighted
Journeyman

Re: Evo - a warning!

To be fair, anything that anyone buys should only be expected to do what it does at point of purchase.  If the seller makes a specific promise to deliver any additional services post sales, they should be held to it.

But no seller of any product anywhere should be held to expectations of the buyer that the seller NEVER PROMISED.

That is just wrong to expect.

You can try to argue this, but simply put, you are wrong. Don't expect anything that the seller didn't offer you.

-Bill

Highlighted
Journeyman

Re: Evo - a warning!

Is this a supposed Iphone killer

Highlighted
Journeyman

Re: Evo - a warning!

bmarconi1 wrote:

To be fair, anything that anyone buys should only be expected to do what it does at point of purchase.  If the seller makes a specific promise to deliver any additional services post sales, they should be held to it.

But no seller of any product anywhere should be held to expectations of the buyer that the seller NEVER PROMISED.

That is just wrong to expect.

You can try to argue this, but simply put, you are wrong. Don't expect anything that the seller didn't offer you.

-Bill

This is an interesting argument and I see your point. Here is a question for you, who is accountable for holding up the bargain if an update is promised? Sprint, HTC, or Google? Isn't the idea/concept of android is that it can be updated? If google is offering updates and Sprint is not getting them to us then is Sprint accountable? What about HTC? Clear as mud! 

Highlighted
Journeyman

Re: Evo - a warning!

bmarconi1 wrote:

To be fair, anything that anyone buys should only be expected to do what it does at point of purchase.  If the seller makes a specific promise to deliver any additional services post sales, they should be held to it.

But no seller of any product anywhere should be held to expectations of the buyer that the seller NEVER PROMISED.

That is just wrong to expect.

You can try to argue this, but simply put, you are wrong. Don't expect anything that the seller didn't offer you.

-Bill

Almost Bill. Almost... There are 2 flaws in your arguement.

1. When a consumer buys an Android phone it is the industry and platform norm for the product to be updated. Unless they specifically this product will not be updated then an update is not only expected but an update is used as a selling point by the company selling the product. Sprint employees know that android is an updated phone OS. So it is not unfair for the consumer to expect the updates. Especially when the company selling the product say they will have updates. Im the case of android phones... Updates are the norm and assumption from all parties involved unless said they are not going to be included.

2. The biggest and easiest flaw in our logic is product updates are fixes for issues and bugs in phones. Sprint has held off on giving updates to many known issues we have with our phones due to them saying 2.1 will fix it. Call a tech support person and see what they tell you when you ask them to fix you mms issues. If the company selling the product sell a defective product then should their not be the expectation of a product being fixed and made right. One of the features of the Hero was MMS and SMS. Well i get my MMS's never and SMS about 50% of the time.

If sprint doesnt want to fix my phone so it works 100% as advertised then offer me a refund and release me from the contract since sprint is the ones not living up to their end of the deal.

You can try to argue this, but simply put, you are wrong.

Highlighted
Patron

Re: Evo - a warning!

LOL tmaxey1 - maybe they don't even have that one guy anymore - Danny Boy Hype Hesse's media star advertisements are expensive !!!!!  - not enough money to pay support staff salaries as well!

Highlighted
Journeyman

Re: Evo - a warning!

Well there we have it, we have fair warning and experience that would indicate when this handset drops (????) expect 6-8 months before anything serious is fixed. Unless a greater sense of urgency has been authorized from the powers that be.

Highlighted
Journeyman

Re: Evo - a warning!


tmaxey1 wrote:

bmarconi1 wrote:

To be fair, anything that anyone buys should only be expected to do what it does at point of purchase.  If the seller makes a specific promise to deliver any additional services post sales, they should be held to it.

But no seller of any product anywhere should be held to expectations of the buyer that the seller NEVER PROMISED.

That is just wrong to expect.

You can try to argue this, but simply put, you are wrong. Don't expect anything that the seller didn't offer you.

-Bill

Almost Bill. Almost... There are 2 flaws in your arguement.

1. When a consumer buys an Android phone it is the industry and platform norm for the product to be updated. Unless they specifically this product will not be updated then an update is not only expected but an update is used as a selling point by the company selling the product. Sprint employees know that android is an updated phone OS. So it is not unfair for the consumer to expect the updates. Especially when the company selling the product say they will have updates. Im the case of android phones... Updates are the norm and assumption from all parties involved unless said they are not going to be included.

2. The biggest and easiest flaw in our logic is product updates are fixes for issues and bugs in phones. Sprint has held off on giving updates to many known issues we have with our phones due to them saying 2.1 will fix it. Call a tech support person and see what they tell you when you ask them to fix you mms issues. If the company selling the product sell a defective product then should their not be the expectation of a product being fixed and made right. One of the features of the Hero was MMS and SMS. Well i get my MMS's never and SMS about 50% of the time.

If sprint doesnt want to fix my phone so it works 100% as advertised then offer me a refund and release me from the contract since sprint is the ones not living up to their end of the deal.

You can try to argue this, but simply put, you are wrong.

Actually, I still have to agree with Bill.  I'll get straight to the point and show you where, I believe, there are some flaws.


1.  Yes, Android devices are one of, essentially, two platforms that get update on a regular basis (Android and iPhone OS).  Now, here's where it starts to fall apart.  It's like this and I quote, "Unless they specifically say this product WILL be updated then an update is not only expected...". Sprint employees know that you can update Android as do consumers, but knowing doesn't really mean anything.  Sure, it's not unfair for them to expect updates but I don't recall a word being spoken about the Evo being updated past 2.1.  The Hero has been confirmed for 2.1 by Sprint, and low and behold, Sprint is releasing it.  Your final sentence says something particularly interesting.  "Updates are the norm and ASSUMPTION from all parties involved unless said they are not going to be included". You can assume all you want, but until the words come out of Sprint's mouth, not HTC or Google, then you expect nothing from Sprint, in terms of updates, since it was NEVER PROMISED to start with.


2.  Yes, Sprint should fix the issues if/when possible, but it's not exactly anything new if they didn't.  Before iPhone, there wasn't any phone OS that was update really at all (sure you can argue WinMo, but those weren't really upgrades haha).   You got what you paid for at the point of sale.  Had bugs?  You bought their newer model.  There was no upgrading.  You also have to remember that when carriers release updates, they have to make sure all of their carrier applications (or bloatware if you must) work flawlessly with it, doesn't hinder reception, doesn't crash the phone, and doesn't cause a plethora of other problems.  Also, unlike Google who is firing out updates, Sprint has other things to tend to then update one phone for a few million people.  Google has the resources and manpower to spew a new update out everyday.  Sprint doesn't and they have other, somewhat more important things to worry about.  That's the unfortunately life of big business my friend.  We should be happy they update the phones past the point of sale software as it's doing YOU a favor, not the other way around.


If you want to get technical about things, you purchased a phone that had the advertised features you wanted.  You phone is capable of MMS/SMS and that was advertised.  It was NOT advertised to work 100% of the time.  Yea, that's what you ASSUME, but it has never been promised at any point in time.


-Ryan

Highlighted
Journeyman

Re: Evo - a warning!

Tmaxey1,Since one cannot determine the tone with which this was written, please know that it is typed with a smile and a hopefully helpful heart.

You have interesting points, but they seem to exactly coincide with what I said. I would like to start with # 2 first.

You say "If sprint doesnt want to fix my phone so it works 100% as advertised then offer me a refund and release me from the contract since sprint is  the ones not living up to their end of the deal." I could not agree more. If it was advertised, then they need to back it up. (As said in my first statement)

But the first one is even more to my point. You say "1. When a consumer buys an Android phone it is the industry and platform  norm for the product to be updated. Unless they specifically this  product will not be updated then an update is not only expected but an  update is used as a selling point by the company selling the product."  This is exactly what I was trying to say in my first post. Did they use it as a selling point, or did you assume it? I will reiterate my original point, but not change its meaning. The past does not dictate the future. Regardless of what has happened in the past, if it is not expressly stated that it will happen in the future, you should not expect it.  You are allowed to want it, wish for it, but not blame the seller for not delivering it. If they never told you it would happen, why on earth would one think they have a right to it? We live in an entitlement society. Many people (Not necessarily you...) feel that just because they expect something, it needs to be. That is just not the way life works. If it is not promised, it should not be expected.Conversely if it is promised... RAISE H**L until you get it.

Keep in mind that I am not a Sprint employee, I am infact a Moment owner that wished that he had 2.1 for a long time (I do now!!!) but it was never Sprints responsibility to deliver it. (Until they said they would.) I am just someone that takes responsibilty for my actions and doesn't expect others to owe me anything. (Again, not saying that you are.)

Again, know that I am not bashing anyone, I am just suggesting to everyone that they take responsibility for thier own actions. To Sprint if they expressly promised something, DO IT,  and to the masses who shouldn't expect things that were not expressly promised.

Highlighted
Journeyman

Re: Evo - a warning!

ThisSpaceForRent, Thanks for a clear the especially fair response.

It is my understanding that Google just makes the OS and The OEM and the reseller (HTC and Sprint in this case.) Are responsible for compatibility. (I could be WAY off, but I don't think I am)

The Android community (who shares no responsibility) often creates a custom ROM to fit your phone before the EOM or reseller. If you feel that you need this, go to them. It does not absolve the others of their responsibility, but does get you satisfied faster.

Again, if there is NOT expressly stated updates coming, then no one is responsible. Is there ARE expressly stated updates, then it is whoever stated them that is responsible.

Ultimately I still don't see why any OS updates are even implied to be coming. The reseller needs to support manufactured defects and other problems but adding new functions are just a perk. I guess I just don't expect anything from anyone that doesn't absolutley owe me, and I am grateful when I get something extra.

Highlighted
Journeyman

Re: Evo - a warning!

Interesting replies gentlemen. However a few points a will make as a follow up.

If Sprint has a MMS/SMS plan that they charge for and a phone that has MMS/SMS advertised as a feature of that phone then they are obligated to make sure the phone can perform these functions. I know with complex OS software that things happen. However, it should not be considered as a favor to the users to release a product fix that gives the user what you are making them pay for.

As far as Android OS.... The issue of right and wrong concerning obligations to update to improved versions of Android can simply be answered with the phrase "Customer Service". Giving good service is not something that is a favor. It is something that is a necessity for the survival of a business. You may consider Sprint as doing you a favor by allowing you to update your phone. I do not. The absolute number one reason most customers have cited when leaving Sprint for other carriers is a lack of customer service. I dont think citing technicalities for reasons its ok to not update a product does much to defend Sprint is they decide to not update a product. Maybe Sprint doesnt like that Android users want updates. Maybe the industry standard and norm is not important to Sprint. Touch luck. It's a cost of doing business. Update Android is life or Death for Sprint or any carrier. They can try to convince some customers that they are not entitled to it. However Sprint or whichever carrier decides to not update will be the ones no longer in business in the end.

A statement was made about people thinking they are "entitled". I would have to say customers are entitled. Here is why. If a customer isnt getting fixes and updates then they will go to the competition that does give fixes and upgrades. This is an important lesson is business that applies far beyond retail. The customer is always right. And if your customers feel they are entitled to 100% working products and updates quickly then they are. Because as soon as your competition finds out you are not satisfying your customers needs, wants, dreams, and desires then you better believe they will.

So going back to the beginning. It makes no difference if people were promised updates. Customers want them and if you dont give them what you want then they wont give you what they want. It makes no difference if updates are written on a flyer, billboard, tv ad or not. So no i dont consider Sprint doing what is needed to stay in business a "Favor" to me.

Do You?

Message was edited by: tmaxey1

Community News

Need Help? 
Please try Searching the Community, we have many questions already answered, you can also check out the Knowledge base.
If you have an account question you can create a post and one of our Social Care Agents will help you.
If you need immediate assistance please visit Sprint Chat