Android 2.3.6 phone... bugged?

[jhu]

Also, Android 2.3??? You've been vulnerable to much more than stagefright for several years…

 

[sweenish]

I'm sure that you would make the same complaint about someone that complained about lack of XP support, then went on to buy a new Windows 10 PC.

Again with the ignorance. Samsung isn't an OS maker. The PC to mobile comparison doesn't fly, because the two ecosystems don't operate in anything resembling the same manner. At least if you're going to try and compare operating systems.

Your example would be getting terrible support from Dell and propietary drivers that stopped getting updates very quickly, and continuing to buy from Dell. Congratulations on just feeding the machine you seem so intent to rage against.

In Android space, it's the OEM who has to update the phone. Carriers simply push the update. Carriers are hated for usually delaying the update for no good reason. OEMs are hated for not even trying to support their phones.

More OEMs really should just circumvent the carriers on this. The whole situation is not ideal, but you keep taking it too far. You think phones are like cars when it comes to importance? Stop buying Pintos. No one's saying you have to buy Lambo's, but do stop buying crap and then complaining about getting a lemon.

Good luck getting any further updates on ANY entry-level phone. And why did you buy another SIM kit? If you were already on T-Mobile, you just swap the card over. Cut it down if you have to. Get an adapter if you go back.

Also, you're not being suckered. You just don't know what the word "new" means in relation to buying things. It's just not been opened. It doesn't matter how long it's been on a shelf. And you don't do any of your own homework. Had you said the word, you would have been inundated with equally cheap, better alternatives than another entry-level Samsung POS.

You didn't even have to ask here. Googling something like "best phone for x" would have done the trick.

 

[VirtualLarry]

More OEMs really should just circumvent the carriers on this. The whole situation is not ideal, but you keep taking it too far. You think phones are like cars when it comes to importance? Stop buying Pintos. No one's saying you have to buy Lambo's, but do stop buying crap and then complaining about getting a lemon.

If Samsung phones are Pintos, then what are Huawii and friends? Dirtbikes? I would probably compare my Samsung phone to a Honda Civic.

Good luck getting any further updates on ANY entry-level phone.

So you are defending corporate greed? If they don't make premium profits off of you, you don't deserve any updates? Is that what you're saying?

And why did you buy another SIM kit? If you were already on T-Mobile, you just swap the card over. Cut it down if you have to. Get an adapter if you go back.

I explained that. T-Mobile won't sell me the phone without the SIM kit. It's a forced bundle.

Also, you're not being suckered. You just don't know what the word "new" means in relation to buying things. It's just not been opened.

No, I think not. It says "new item" next to only certain phones. And T-Mobile doesn't sell used phones. (And the refurbs are clearly marked as refurb.) So, try again with your complaint about how I'm an idiot?

And you don't do any of your own homework. Had you said the word, you would have been inundated with equally cheap, better alternatives than another entry-level Samsung POS.
You didn't even have to ask here. Googling something like "best phone for x" would have done the trick.

I take it you're not a fan of Samsung phones.

 

[ThisIsChrisKim]

If Samsung phones are Pintos, then what are Huawii and friends? Dirtbikes? I would probably compare my Samsung phone to a Honda Civic.

So you are defending corporate greed? If they don't make premium profits off of you, you don't deserve any updates? Is that what you're saying?


I explained that. T-Mobile won't sell me the phone without the SIM kit. It's a forced bundle.


No, I think not. It says "new item" next to only certain phones. And T-Mobile doesn't sell used phones. (And the refurbs are clearly marked as refurb.) So, try again with your complaint about how I'm an idiot?

I take it you're not a fan of Samsung phones.

You can go to the T-Mobile store and just pick up any phone you want, SIM-free. The online ordering system tends to be a bit restrictive, so it's not always the best option.

You should know better than to lump "Samsung" into a Pinto. sweenish is calling the model of phone you bought a Pinto. Samsung is a full line OEM that makes "Pinto"s and then also makes "Hurracan"s (Lamborghini). It's been the pattern that the top-end models get supported for several years while the cheaper budget models get poor support for a short period of time. As you've been able to read AT and Ars for years, this is very commonly and frequently reported "news".

New in box doesn't mean it was released yesterday. Come on now. You could buy a new in box Newton, but that doesn't mean it's manufactured yesterday and still supported today. That's how all that old left over unsold stock gets sold on eBay as brand new in box. There's no trickery there. You weren't fooled. You didn't do research, so don't scapegoat your own poor decision making.

 

[dainthomas]

My warranty on that phone was 90 days, I think. Does that mean, that I, as a consumer, should expect to have to purchase a new phone every 90 days, to be able to stay "supported"? IOW, I don't believe that warranty length on the hardware, should have anything to do with the support lifecycle of the software contained within.

I think that you took the gist of my post slightly out of context. The carrier SHOULD be aware of: 1) My device (they show it in my account control panel), 2) My firmware revision on that device, 3) whether that device is still supported from the OEM, and 4) whether there are any outstanding security vulns for that device.

I think that I read that too, but I went looking for that setting, and as far as I can tell, it isn't present on my phone.


No, I disabled background data transfers, to see if it would stop the data indicator from lighting up. And I don't have any apps on the phone to update, other than what shipped on it.

Why the he** should I be tied to an onerous post-paid cell contract?

I dunno man, I think your ego is bigger than mine.

I paid for a phone from T-mobile, out of pocket. I just want it to work properly, without serious remote exploits. If that's "ego" and "entitlement" to want what I paid for to work, then I can only suggest that you have been totally brainwashed by faceless greedy corporations.

Reality check? You mean, not choosing to place a hefty donation in a corporate altar every year?

I didn't disable app updates. But I don't have any apps to update!
Btw, are you saying that an OTA firmware update would be delivered to the phone as an "app update", and not when I select "check for firmware updates"?

Why do I need the latest OS? All I need is a re-compiled build of my current OS, with the stagefright patch applied. Surely that's not an impossible request.

Why would google do that for the ten people running Gingerbread? That's like patching holes on a ship that's sitting at the bottom of the ocean.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I think this entire thread really does illustrate what a tenuous situation Android is in currently. I feel VirtualLarry is giving us a really good approximation of the thought process of a "normal" user which is all too often not seen on this forum.

First of all, like many normal users VirtualLarry doesn't really care about updates most of the time. He has stuck with Gingerbread since long past its expiration date and even stopped his apps from updating. It obviously was good enough for him. This apathy, and even downright avoidance, of updates is why Google has gotten away with the way Android is for so long.

Then an external source came in-news reports about stagefright- and suddenly updates are a wanted thing. By default the normals don't care about updates unless someone puts the fear of IT god into them. We all know many normal users who complain the only reason Apple releases updates is to slow down the old hardware (so they have to buy new phones) and the actual benefits of updates are barely appreciated outside of security patches. In fact I would bet my house that unless Larry is a CEO of a large corporation his phone didn't get hacked as any kind of weaponized stagefright implementation is very targeted- aka you are hacking the phone of a specific important person to accomplish a specific goal. He was probably always safe simply because he isn't important enough in the scheme of things (no offense Larry, neither am I).

But this all shows us something VERY important that we miss- when confidence is lost it is a very slippery slope. Just like that family member in your life that claims that their computer is infected with viruses because the 8 year old laptop's harddrive is dying, Larry was quick to blame something probably COMPLETELY unrelated to the actual issue because the news report about stagefright opened up that door. Even worse (from the techy perspective) he was quick to advocate the kinds of regulation that would really harm the industry just to accommodate his position on the chessboard as an low-information mobile consumer.

The point that we, and Google, should take from this is that Android's big problem can't be swept underneath the rug forever. If Google doesn't find some way to push out updates themselves then every time an exploit is found the entire ecosystem will lose consumer confidence which can be directly translated to political power. If Google doesn't fix it, they will be begging legislators looking for easy votes to try and force them to fix it.

Just telling the normals to "only buy a phone to get updates" doesn't work, that is too hard for them. Just like Larry here they talk to a friend and "learn" that Samsung's flagship Galaxy phone gets updates and assumes that applies to every phone Samsung makes. This will make Larry doubly mad at the carrier and Samsung and even Google when he learns that the phone he purchased doesn't get updates because those only come to the flagship phones. He won't blame himself for a poor purchase, he will blame the system. That means the system doesn't work.

The anti-trust investigation shows that the time of Google getting to do whatever it wants with impunity is almost over. Like it or not Android is turning into an important OS in the world, and yet the best security model Google will commit to is monthly updates (not zero day like Microsoft) and only on their Nexus devices. If won't be the nerds of the world that force Google to change, it will be the Larrys of the world. And when that change is forced all of us who are plugged into the industry won't like the effect of what the Larrys of the world will propose.

 

[Red Storm]

I'd have to disagree with you about OP being a good approximation of a "normal" user, especially looking at their posts in this thread.

 

[jhu]

I'd have to disagree with you about OP being a good approximation of a "normal" user, especially looking at their posts in this thread.

My impression is that he's tach savvy, but incredibly cheap and is new to what's happening in the smartphone space.

If I were in his shoes, I'd buy a Moto E and put Cyanogenmod on it. A new Moto E can be had for <$150 and is bootloader unlockable. Other options include LG G2 (<$200) or HTC One M7 (<$150). These are all bootloader unlockable. I'd get one of these and put Cyanogenmod on it. Living in the USA, I'd never buy a Samsung from the carrier store because the they lock the bootloader on those phones.

 

[VirtualLarry]

My impression is that he's tach savvy, but incredibly cheap and is new to what's happening in the smartphone space.

When it comes to PCs and x86, I'm pretty savvy, from years of experience programming, supporting, and building PCs.

With phones, not so much. My "lowly" Samsung Exhibit 4G was my first smartphone. I wanted, primarily, just a phone, but one that could do a bit more web browsing than my ancient flip-phone. Features that were important to me were "Real web Browsing", "Wifi calling", and "Hotspot". Both my current and the new Samsung have those features.

When it comes to phones and Android, and things like rooting and ROMing, I don't know all that much about. I mean, I'm not unfamiliar with flashing 3rd-party firmware, for things like routers, but I've not done that with a phone.

And yes, I am fairly "cheap".

I'd never buy a Samsung from the carrier store because the they lock the bootloader on those phones.

Good to know.

 

[VirtualLarry]

New in box doesn't mean it was released yesterday. Come on now. You could buy a new in box Newton, but that doesn't mean it's manufactured yesterday and still supported today. That's how all that old left over unsold stock gets sold on eBay as brand new in box. There's no trickery there. You weren't fooled. You didn't do research, so don't scapegoat your own poor decision making.

It didn't say "New in Box". It said "New item". Meaning, new stock, as in, not previously stocked before. It couldn't simply mean that the item's condition was "new", since they don't sell used.

 

[VirtualLarry]

He has stuck with Gingerbread since long past its expiration date and even stopped his apps from updating. It obviously was good enough for him. This apathy, and even downright avoidance, of updates is why Google has gotten away with the way Android is for so long.

I haven't avoided updates at all, and for the last time, the setting in Gingerbread that I changed, was disabling "Background data transfer". That setting said nothing about disabling app updates. I wouldn't want to do that. If that setting is mis-labeled, I would like to know.

Also, i only disabled that two weeks ago, after noticing that my 4G data transfer icon keeps showing me uploading data, constantly, for some reason, especially during calls.

I mean, if you were running Windows XP, with the systray icon that lights up for receiving or sending, and weren't web browsing, and had Windows Update disabled, and it kept lighting up for transferring data outbound, wouldn't you be concerned that you might be part of a botnet? I would.

Edit: I checked my online account. 400KB+ data transferred so far. That's about 4X the amount that I normally see, for a month that I don't web-browse.

So there's something on my phone using up more data.

 

[jhu]

When it comes to PCs and x86, I'm pretty savvy, from years of experience programming, supporting, and building PCs.

With phones, not so much. My "lowly" Samsung Exhibit 4G was my first smartphone. I wanted, primarily, just a phone, but one that could do a bit more web browsing than my ancient flip-phone. Features that were important to me were "Real web Browsing", "Wifi calling", and "Hotspot". Both my current and the new Samsung have those features.

When it comes to phones and Android, and things like rooting and ROMing, I don't know all that much about. I mean, I'm not unfamiliar with flashing 3rd-party firmware, for things like routers, but I've not done that with a phone.

And yes, I am fairly "cheap".


Good to know.

I think you're the type who would like having a custom ROM on his phone. The first time you do it you'll wonder why you missed out for so many years.

 

[sweenish]

All this fuss over less than 1 MB.

Something as simple as an email/calendar/whatever sync, and your phone has been haX3d.

Tell me that's a typo.

 

[Capt Caveman]

IMHO, mobile phones are as important as cars. I would be in support of legislation that required the end-user to be supported with security patches, because it's clear that the mobile phone industry is only after profits, and doesn't care about the end-user.

Though I wouldn't be in favor of manditory patches.

:biggrin: