Child Item

Site Totals

61434 Questions Answered 270 Categories

Why are Verizon Nexus owners the last to get 4.0.4?

Seems like everyone else that has a handset with the name "Nexus" is getting updated to 4.0.4. Why am I not surprised that Verizon customers are getting left out in the cold? Yes, the CDMA version is different than the GSM but damn it why the hell can't we get anything to go right with this phone. I don't care if the problem lies with Google, with Samsung, or with Verizon. I just want the damned update pushed out so I can see if it fixes my phone. If it does, great. If it doesn't then I guess I'll enter the realm of the "Certified Pre-Owned" world.

<word filter avoidance> you Verizon and your great network. <word filter avoidance> you Verizon and your always cheerful customer service people. If only every other part of Verizon sucked as bad as my experience with this phone then I could justify switching to another carrier.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/28/android-4-0-4-rolls-out-to-hspa-galaxy-nexus-and-gsm-nexus-s/

Message was edited by: Verizon Moderator

Comments

commonsense101

Wow You seem really worked up over the amazing features the 4.04 adds, like Quicker screen rotation

pool_shark

...and the signal fix, the wifi reboots, the text lag, javascript, the volume, etc.

Tidbits

I believe it would be Qualcomm patents also the Nexus S 4G, and the CDMA panda board iirc isn't getting the update...

carseller0822

If that's all this update addresses then I will be worked up. I'd just like to be able to send and receive picture messages with some consistency, hear my phone when it rings, and be able to determine when my phone shuts off.

fastearle86

You crack me up...even IF youre right....LMAO

Who cares about Qualcomm!! Fix the phone!! Just dont know who to tell to fix the phone!!!! LMAO

Too funny! And tragic...

Carseller! Get the certified! Either way, you'll get covered and if it doesn't fix mine, i was promised a new model! I'm thinkin' a Razor Maxx if it comes to that....though i hope it doesn't!!

YosemiteSam357

In addition, this update should make the USB port on the GNex useful for something other than charging. USB I/O is broken under 4.0.2.

Been waiting since the day I got my phone, which was the day it came out. Not impressed at all; I don't care WHO is responsible for getting the OTA out.

-- Sam

pool_shark

I transfer files all the time using USB on my Nexus.

commonsense101

so far about 90% of the "updates" you guys are hoping for should already be working now.. my buddy has the nexus and he hasnt had any of the problems in this thread

Devils8

Just for everyone's info, Tidbits has to work for Verizon. I was in another forum, and everything he says is to defend Verizon, blame everything on Google, Samsung, whoever. Which is fine. But I have a question, I recently got the 2100 MaH bigger Samsung battery (since the Verizon-promised software "battery fix" never occurred), and it's a slight improvement, but still horrible. Has anyone gotten one of the bigger batteries, I think they are 3800 MaH, but they are not made by Samsung? If so are they dependable, and do they increase the size of the phone at all? I was able to use the same case with the new Samsung battery, which was nice. Anyway, interested to hear what Tidbits says. Given that Samsung is now including the 2100 MaH batteries with new Nexuses, it seems that the atrocious battery life wasn't just a "software issue" after all. But it's not Verizon's fault for telling its customers that, surely.

Tidbits

grow up man. As I told you and various other people before on AT&T, Verizon, Sprint(which I no longer go to), and T-Mobile forums. Start blaming manufacturers if you want things to change. Just look at HTC stance on locked boot loaders which they said exactly what Motorola says. Now look which has a unlockable boot loader and which one doesn't. Then look at which group blamed who. Results are not surprising.

If you care to wager I can prove I have never worked for Verizon or have any vested interest. You'd have to fly to Hawaii. USN has everything on file about me up to this point in my life.

Tidbits

Go to Google+ sometime... people with stock batteries unrooted get 10+ hours of battery. I have posted a few screenshots where I get 18+ hours on an extended battery on these forums and on G+. It's all in the background data for the most part for most people. Their usage to them may be light users, but their apps maybe using a lot of background data(advertisements), and data polling.

pool_shark

Battery life: My perspective.

I say this all the time. Smartphones are computers. They are not the flip phones of old. They have large bright screens, they have dual-core processors, they multitask, etc.

Unplug your laptop, use it as normal and see how long the battery lasts.

nimiaj

I have had the Galaxy Nexus since it came out. Compared to some of the issues that I've been hearing, my phone has been relatively bug free when it comes to using it. Only problem that I see for my phone is that it restarts (very rarely) though. And I have been able to relate this to signal strength and misbehaving apps for the most part.

However, as an informed consumer, I purchased this phone as this was taunted to be the next "Google Phone" which would get direct updates from Google whenever the AOSP source branch gets updated. However, recently Google has declared almost all CDMA devices as "unsupported" devices from the point of view of AOSP. Which (I assume) means that I should still expect updates from them, however, not as immediately as the GSM counterparts received it.

My problem with this is that the Verizon Galaxy Nexus should not have been advertised by Google as a "Google Phone" if it is going to treat it different. Licensing issues or not, it is eventually Google's Phone and hence their ultimate responsibility to ensure that they provide what they commit.

I do not know who is the licensing party that Google is referring to, however, as far as I am concerned as a consumer, I can only see two parties here, Google and Verizon. They need to work it out.

My two cents. If any Verizon Reps are monitoring this forum, some kind of explanation is welcome.

Devils8

I agree, so many people on this forum fervently defend Verizon, but

Google's move was very questionable as well. If they were going to make

this change, they should have done so before, not after the phone was

released, so people wouldn't buy it on false pretenses. It's not like they

didn't realized Verizon was CDMA. I feel like something is going on between

the two companies, but like everyone else have no idea what it is. For the

customer, the trouble is what can we do about it? We're not paying Google,

and I don't even know if they have customer reps to talk to, so as far as I

can tell all we can really do is try to deal through Verizon.

Tidbits

Google already explained. They do not have the licensing to distribute CDMA code. I said about 25 times already and actually posted directly from Google's developer blogs. Sprint nor Verizon do not own any piece of that code, and Qualcomm controls that code.

Tidbits

You are paying Google every time you search, buy an app, look at advertisements and such on your Android device.

Also we are not defending Verizon like you claim. We just think more rationally than you do.

nimiaj

I am well aware of the entire issue. I have read Jean-Baptise's posts explaining the issue in detail, and thank you for pointing it out 25 times on this forum. My issue still remains that both Google and Verizon license Qualcomm technology. I, as a consumer can only expect or complain to either Google (as the phone's eventual sponsor) or Verizon (as MY service provider). Why do they get to absolve blame just because Qualcomm owns the licenses? It should be their due diligence to ensure that Qualcomm does not raise a licensing issue later in the process. Furthermore, if it was in Google's interest, do you think they would give up so easily?

Devils8

You sound like a real class act there. And good lord, I criticize Google,

now you leap to their defense? Can anyone be at fault except the customer

in your world?

As for rationality and your notion of paying google, buying an app, sure. A

few dollars, where the object of the transaction is an app--not an

agreement for updates, services, etc., so the contract as it were to

download an app doesn't create any obligation on google's part regarding

updates, problems with the underlying phone software, etc. That's one

rational step. Second, searching and seeing advertisements on websites is

not like entering into a contract with a phone carrier. Again, it creates

no obligations and is not a contract. Another rational step. So, yes, we

are paying Google in a sense, but not in a way that gives the customer any

enforceable rights or obligations. So rationally, from the consumer's

perspective the point is moot.

Rationally, the only person that has obligations to the customer in this

situation is the seller, which is Verizon. We could debate endlessly about

fault, and whose to blame in this situation, etc. But there's really no

point, Verizon is the corporation who has formed contracts with their

customers, who pay them substantial amounts of money for services. And any

promises that are made when a contract is formed is part of that contract.

If the promise is breached, that's a potential legal problem for the

corporation. Continuing promises made after the contract that are relied

upon by the customer to his detriment also have the potential to cause

serious problems for a company in terms of liability. You might not like

this, or think it is "rational," but it is how the law works. This is one

of the reasons it's very bad policy to make promises to customers that are

not fulfilled. So all the customers who are angry, though they likely are

angry at Google as well, will deal with Verizon, because they have

enforceable contracts with Verizon, and not Google, who is essentially

untouchable, barring some kind of lawsuit or governmental action. Is this

fair? No, probably not, but this is how it works. You can criticize and

mock consumers all you want, and focus solely on the fairness of the issue

from the corporation's perspective, but ultimately consumers have limited

recourse, and refusing to acknowledge this, to me, is irrational.

Tidbits

nimiaj wrote:
Tidbits I am well aware of the entire issue. I have read Jean-Baptise's posts explaining the issue in detail, and thank you for pointing it out 25 times on this forum. My issue still remains that both Google and Verizon license Qualcomm technology. I, as a consumer can only expect or complain to either Google (as the phone's eventual sponsor) or Verizon (as MY service provider). Why do they get to absolve blame just because Qualcomm owns the licenses? It should be their due diligence to ensure that Qualcomm does not raise a licensing issue later in the process. Furthermore, if it was in Google's interest, do you think they would give up so easily?

Verizon doesn't license the code. Just like ANYONE who buys a Qualcomm product you do not have the right to modify or distribute the code. All updates and firmware come from Qualcomm.

This "issue" was Qualcomm, and Google as you look above. This was honestly one of the reasons why the Nexus One never made it a CDMA carrier.

I saw this coming I actually have a post about this PRIOR to the release of the Galaxy Nexus on Verizon. It was ALREADY KNOWN that support was going to be different PRIOR to the release of the device.

Yes Google would give up to easily. Do you know Android was originally written for GSM? Did you know more work is required to code for CDMA because of how Qualcomm does things? Did you know it isn't honestly worth the effort to deal with Qualcomm at the open source level? CDMA support for AOSP is honestly no different when you take out Qualcomm proprietary bits. All the code is exactly the same at that point.

fastearle86

I did, then called Verizon and got a new one. One week in and works fine so far. My advice will be, contact verizon support asap and let them know how you feel. I didnt have to get angry, just told them what was going on. Ultimately if this doesnt work, i can pick a new model phone.

At least it worked for me but some in here would say i know nothing... about inner workings? Nope, but who cares!! lol

Child Item