Nokia Lumia - Here Comes Denim Firmware

[primortal]

Just when you though getting Cyan released by Microsoft/Verizon was a nightmare; here comes Demin firmware set for release in Q4 2014.

Here are some of the features Denim will bring:

• Speed: Never miss a moment with Lumia Camera and its fast camera startup and capture speeds. Take numerous photos with just milliseconds beyond shots.
• High definition: Using Moment Capture, a long press of the camera button within the app automatically starts 4K-quality video recording at 24 frames per second. Each frame is of high image quality at 8.3 megapixels, allowing every single video frame to be selected and saved as a still image.
• Intuitiveness: Get the best shot every time with Rich Capture, which simplifies picture-taking with auto HDR and Dynamic Flash. With Rich Capture, people can avoid the hassle adjusting camera settings; they can shoot first and edit and select the perfect shot later.
• Quality: Capture high-quality smartphone images in low light with the latest-generation imaging algorithms.

Right now it looks like these features will be only for the Lumia Icon.

Source: Lumia Denim firmware announced by Microsoft, brings 4K-quality video and more | Windows Phone Centra...

[wbsobe]

Since we are all still waiting for the Cyan update.  We will see the Denim update probably 2017?  I would ask Verizon but they don't like answer questions about update implementation.  Verizon.......Verizon......Verizon........ YOU S***!

[rednibkram]

Denim will also bring voice activation of Cortana for the Lumia Icon.  If you hands are full or wet and your phone is across the room, you can simply say "Hey Cortana!" and it will be like pushing the search button.

Now, either Verizon is secretly working with Microsoft on the Denim update and they plan to skip the Cyan update alltogether, which would explain the long delay in the update, or Verizon is the WORST carrier on the planet for updates and we should all leave Verizon and go to AT&T where they know how to show Windows Phone users a bit of love.

However, if I'm mistaken and Verizon releases the Cyan update sometime within the next 4 months, I will most probably have already left and went back to AT&T before Verizon ever releases the Denim update!

[primortal]

That would be awesome if VZW jumped straight to WP 8.1 Update 1 + Denim but all know VZW doesn't have the intelligence for that

[BlackDimension]

Intelligence?  That would require functioning brain cells - which apparently are in short supply somewhere over in Verizon Executive land.  Short supply might be an overstatement.

[benigndarkness]

I like looking at the different regions, and seeing that almost every carrier in every part of the world has released the Cyan update excluding Verizon and T-mobile.  T-mobile is not as big a network as Verizon, and I would never use them.  But Verizon should be completely ashamed that they will be one of (if not THE) last carriers to push out the Cyan update.  I love my Windows Phone, and the ICON is the best one I've used yet (had 4 different ones).

Next week Apple will be having their big event, and then there will be IOS 8, which iPhone users will get at the same time as the rest of the world.  Android has several big reveals coming up the week after.  Microsoft just announced another update that will make 8.1 even better than it already is, and we still can't get any information on 8.1/Cyan.  I feel frustrated because even if I wanted to switch to AT&T right now, the best Nokia phone they currently have is over a year old and the newest two devices announced aren't even high end phones like the ICON.  So, if I want a high end phone on any carrier, it looks like I will have to switch to iPhone or Android.

[#7]

Availability in North America - Nokia

No what you are seeing is North America and AT&T is the only provider listing available.

MVO companies listed also say in testing.

This is just rehashing the same posts from above.

Verizon and others will provide the update *IF* they want to and when they want to.

Complaining as I stated above will do absolutely no good.

Complaints to the FCC or FTC or FBI or CIA or OSS or interpol cannot force Verizon to update your phone.

That also goes for Androids it just will take time. Be patient.

And trust me iOS devices have not always received great updates. More frequent but read the forum on all the complaints. And the funny thing is Verizon can do nothing about the issues since Apple pushes out the updates.

[BlackDimension]

Can't completely agree with you here - complaining to the FCC can make a difference.  It is a method of getting broad exposure to a common complaint and problem from a company in the communications industry to the Federal Communications Commission.  Zero communication from the company to it's customers, and what appears to be a bias against supporting the Windows Phone platform.  I put in a complaint to the FCC and received a call from a higher up Verizon representative to talk about it.  Guess what?  I brought up that I was NOT alone, and he confirmed while we were talking that he was "perusing" the Verizon forums and couldn't believe the amount of chatter going on about this.  He was required to submit a report to the Verizon Executives regarding the FCC complaint based on our call and the complaint being made.  If you don't speak up, you won't be heard.

Is what Verizon is doing a true violation of the FCC rules?  Maybe.  Fact is, Verizon needs to answer to their customers and why they are remaining silent and not doing anything.  There could be more going on here, and could be illegal activities within the company.  What if they are found to be doing this intentionally for their own gain, or allegiance to another company (Apple, Google, etc.)?

Just saying - I complained to the FCC and got a response from Verizon directly.  If enough complain, maybe - just maybe, our voices will be heard and the execs at Verizon sitting on their big paychecks might grow a brain and do something about it.  We are the customer - and do not deserve to be locked into a 2 year contract with a company providing poor service regarding expected, widely publicized software updates that they are holding back.  At the very least, they can communicate a timeline, plan, and reason for the delays.

[Tidbits]

BlackDimension wrote:

Can't completely agree with you here - complaining to the FCC can make a difference.  It is a method of getting broad exposure to a common complaint and problem from a company in the communications industry to the Federal Communications Commission.  Zero communication from the company to it's customers, and what appears to be a bias against supporting the Windows Phone platform.  I put in a complaint to the FCC and received a call from a higher up Verizon representative to talk about it.  Guess what?  I brought up that I was NOT alone, and he confirmed while we were talking that he was "perusing" the Verizon forums and couldn't believe the amount of chatter going on about this.  He was required to submit a report to the Verizon Executives regarding the FCC complaint based on our call and the complaint being made.  If you don't speak up, you won't be heard.

Is what Verizon is doing a true violation of the FCC rules?  Maybe.  Fact is, Verizon needs to answer to their customers and why they are remaining silent and not doing anything.  There could be more going on here, and could be illegal activities within the company.  What if they are found to be doing this intentionally for their own gain, or allegiance to another company (Apple, Google, etc.)?

Just saying - I complained to the FCC and got a response from Verizon directly.  If enough complain, maybe - just maybe, our voices will be heard and the execs at Verizon sitting on their big paychecks might grow a brain and do something about it.  We are the customer - and do not deserve to be locked into a 2 year contract with a company providing poor service regarding expected, widely publicized software updates that they are holding back.  At the very least, they can communicate a timeline, plan, and reason for the delays.

These complaints have been coming for the past 6 years....  It does NOTHING.  Manufacturers have ADMITTED they have more control than people believe to be.  Manufacturers touch all the code, and give carriers OPTIONS based on what the manufacturers are willing to work with.  If the manufacture doesn't want to give the option they don't have to.  See Apple as an example...

You will have to PROVE the update is completed and nothing is wrong with it.  You have to prove that there is incentive for carriers to not deliver the update.  One can argue manufacturers don't care for updating...  You'd pay the same regardless if  you keep your device for 6 years or 6 months.  Manufacturers on the other hand... Lose resources and money keeping their devices up to date and also don't make residual income.  One the device is sold that's all they make.  They need to keep people buying...

So unless you can PROVE Verizon has the update and can push it out without any adverse effects then the FCC will do nothing.  It's been proven for the past 6 years with all the lawsuits and FCC filings with Android devices.

[#10]

The only problem is Verizon spoke to you to placate you. I can tell you that the FCC cannot compel Verizon wireless to put any updates on your device. Search the web and there is no regulation or policy or court decision to make them do anything on updates.

You cannot have constraint of trade regarding any updates versus the device makers wanting to sell devices with different features or functions.

I will use an example in the last couple of months I purchased a new Chrysler 200s and it has a computer nav system. The dealer told me that it was up to date. However 22 days later my console alerted me to a firmware update. The update cost me $175 so I called the sales man and he said that should not have happened. But he does not have any control over the update. It is not going to hurt my car if I don't update but my weather and traffic will or may be inaccurate. I cannot blame Chrysler so who do I call? NavQ who tell me the updated disc is available at the dealership. But again one deflect to the other.

I could file a charge at a local government agency, but it does not make sense since it is not a safety issue or a recall. The same applies to updates on devices.

It worked when purchased it will work now without updates.

I wonder how many Verizon customers would take offense if the updates came faster but there was say a $100 charge to acquire it.

Something to think about.

[BlackDimension]

FCC Consumer complaints have historically and recently forced the hand of the carriers (often Verizon) with the following issues:  unfair billing, bait and switch selling, telemarketing scams, data throttling, dead towers, use of unlocked phones with other carriers, refusing to move phone numbers to new phones, and more.

I wonder what specific rules or laws were in place that hit all of these areas?  Just because there is not a law or rule for it does not mean that there is nothing that can or should be done.  How are laws and rules put into place?  By enough people saying "this makes sense" and a governing official starting the process to make it rule or law.  I, among many others, feel that it is not fair for carriers to intentionally "throttle" or "limit" their customers from updates in a timely manner, especially those that improve the experience and functionality of the device.

Let's take the Lumia ICON for example.  Hardware has 4 microphones capable of recording in Dolby 5.1.  However, this does not work without 8.1.  This is listed as a feature on the phone, and the software to support it is available, yet Verizon drags their feet on releasing it.  Customers committing to a 2 year contract for a device should be able to expect expect new features to be "unlocked" or added if the manufacturer has released the software for that device.  How is this different than carriers blocking the "tethering" ability for phones, and charging extra for it as a "feature" - until they got in trouble for that?  If they are intentionally manipulating customers to be persuaded to "buy a new device" because they don't want to release an update that makes an older phone more useful, how is this a fair practice?  How about the new "allow unlocking phones law".  That came to be by CONSUMERS getting 110,000 signatures in a petition to allow phone unlocking to be legal.  I choose to be a consumer that speaks out on what I think are unfair practices by carriers, ultimately manipulating or taking advantage of their customers.

I think the underlying problem with all of this is that the rules and regulators forming those rules are behind the times.  Technology is changing rapidly, and there are many questions as to who owns the right to limit a devices capabilities if the manufacturer of that device has released updates that improve upon or fix problems with said device.  This goes well beyond topics of phone device OS/Software upgrades.  It will soon apply to cars, smart TV's, tablet devices, etc.

One more thought.  What would people do if a computer manufacturer, lets say HP or Lenovo, using Microsoft Windows 8 decided to limit the ability to install patches or enhancements on some hardware, but include it on "newer" hardware?  Let's say that hardware was leased by a business, and they were locked into a 2 year commitment.  What then?  Would there be outrage?  Would there be complaints to governing authorities trying to get laws put in place to prevent that kind of abuse or incompetency?  Or - would nothing happen and the business would have to go find another company to lease from and hope they don't do the same thing?

[Tidbits]

BlackDimension wrote:

FCC Consumer complaints have historically and recently forced the hand of the carriers (often Verizon) with the following issues:  unfair billing, bait and switch selling, telemarketing scams, data throttling, dead towers, use of unlocked phones with other carriers, refusing to move phone numbers to new phones, and more.

I wonder what specific rules or laws were in place that hit all of these areas?  Just because there is not a law or rule for it does not mean that there is nothing that can or should be done.  How are laws and rules put into place?  By enough people saying "this makes sense" and a governing official starting the process to make it rule or law.  I, among many others, feel that it is not fair for carriers to intentionally "throttle" or "limit" their customers from updates in a timely manner, especially those that improve the experience and functionality of the device.

Where's the proof of this?  Just because it isn't on your device doesn't mean it isn't finished.  Just because it's on another device doesn't mean it is finished either.  FCC for the past 6 years has done nothing.  If there are rules and regulations in placed.  HTC, Sony, Samsung, Motorola, and a slew of other manufacturers would be in trouble of this in the past 6 years.  Manufacturers already admitted carriers have less control than people make it out to believe.

Let's take the Lumia ICON for example.  Hardware has 4 microphones capable of recording in Dolby 5.1.  However, this does not work without 8.1.  This is listed as a feature on the phone, and the software to support it is available, yet Verizon drags their feet on releasing it.  Customers committing to a 2 year contract for a device should be able to expect expect new features to be "unlocked" or added if the manufacturer has released the software for that device.  How is this different than carriers blocking the "tethering" ability for phones, and charging extra for it as a "feature" - until they got in trouble for that?  If they are intentionally manipulating customers to be persuaded to "buy a new device" because they don't want to release an update that makes an older phone more useful, how is this a fair practice?  How about the new "allow unlocking phones law".  That came to be by CONSUMERS getting 110,000 signatures in a petition to allow phone unlocking to be legal.  I choose to be a consumer that speaks out on what I think are unfair practices by carriers, ultimately manipulating or taking advantage of their customers.

This is all on Nokia.  They released the phone without this in place.  They said it was still in development when they released it.  It is conceivable they are still not finished with it and the reason for the delay.  This is on Nokia camp to express this.  Much like Motorola with the Cliq(NOT Cliq XT) for example.  Motorola told everyone on their own they had trouble with Sharp delivering drivers for the display and was the cause of the delay.  Took 6 months longer than what Motorola would have liked.  They were sued and so was T-Mobile. 

Also Carriers make the SAME amount regardless of what phone you have... They ACTUALLY make MORE money by keeping you on a device.  People FAIL to realize part of their monthly bill is paying for their device.  If you don't upgrade for 4 years you paid 2 devices and only have 1 in your hand. This is coming from Verizon in court stating this back in the late 90's and one of the reasons we have diminishing returns on the ETF.  Manufacturers on the other hand...  Once you buy a phone and you don't upgrade or buy their next latest and greatest...  That's it... Manufacturers need you to keep buying if need be.  They WILL skimp support for their worst selling devices.

I think the underlying problem with all of this is that the rules and regulators forming those rules are behind the times.  Technology is changing rapidly, and there are many questions as to who owns the right to limit a devices capabilities if the manufacturer of that device has released updates that improve upon or fix problems with said device.  This goes well beyond topics of phone device OS/Software upgrades.  It will soon apply to cars, smart TV's, tablet devices, etc.

They are NOT behind the times.  The problem is people believe developing software is easy to do and everything is the same.  If we broke down a lot of the code you'll find out often what is perceived the same is different and at times requires different code.  For example...  CDMA requires Qualcomm signed keys, and any changes to the radio requires Qualcomm to check the code.  This also causes the FCC to go through testing on their own to make sure they keep their licensing and doesn't cause interference.

One more thought.  What would people do if a computer manufacturer, lets say HP or Lenovo, using Microsoft Windows 8 decided to limit the ability to install patches or enhancements on some hardware, but include it on "newer" hardware?  Let's say that hardware was leased by a business, and they were locked into a 2 year commitment.  What then?  Would there be outrage?  Would there be complaints to governing authorities trying to get laws put in place to prevent that kind of abuse or incompetency?  Or - would nothing happen and the business would have to go find another company to lease from and hope they don't do the same thing?

This is easy... computers all use the SAME manufacturers and use the same hardware standard.  Cell phones do not have a standard like computers do.  There's a huge difference between the two markets.  Lenovo, and Asus are the two largest barebone manufacturers.  Dell and HP uses Asus parts.  So until cell phones follow the same standard things are not all the same. 

We can look at the iphone for a prime example.  the GSM version vs. the CDMA version.  They both use different RIL's and HAL's.  The Nexus 5 for US, and the rest of the world is also the same they use different RIL's and HAL's.

Edit I wanted to add... There may be a standard soon for cell phones... Question is...  How popular will it be?

Google Project Ara | Everything related to Google Project Ara

This is an open source standard where it follows more inline with your last paragraph.

[havermeyer]

Ahhh... Elector telling people how little help there is in complaining about verizon and how poorly they perform in communicating to their customers.

Message edited as required by the

Message was edited by: Admin Moderator

[BlackDimension]

Couldn't agree more.  I also have a Lumia ICON (upgraded from Lumia 928), and filed an FCC complaint against Verizon on this very subject.  Microsoft should also be going after Verizon.  I am proud of Microsoft for releasing so many major updates so quickly!  What a nice change (and much needed).  However, as a loyal Verizon customer for many years, I and many others are treated with no respect in regards to honoring these loyal customers.  There is no excuse for lack of release of Cyan - and now we have Denim right on it's heals.  MS is already working on GDR2, which would be AFTER Denim.  If they release an update every 3-6 months like this, we can expect to see them in about 10 years from Verizon, right?  Or are we all destined to settling for using developer preview releases because of Verizon's incompetence?

I smell a lawsuit in the making against Verizon and possibly T-Mobile if they don't' get their act together...  Just wondering who will start it (consumers, or Microsoft).  It's not in Microsoft's best interest to get on Verizon's bad side, but then again - sometimes that's what it takes to get something done nowadays!

Verizon is botching the chances of success for Windows Phone as an OS of choice in more ways than one...  Don't get me started on their sales reps bias/obsession with the iPhone 5c and iPhone 5s over any droid or Windows Phone.

[JIce88]

Elector and others,

I'm sure you have a lot of fun coming on here to play Debbie Downers to others trying to push an issue, but I have to respect the people who push issues. Verizon's silence on updates may not be a legal issue, it is certainly a customer service issue.

AT&T has already updated all of their WP's to Cyan firmware and that is something that myself and other Verizon customers are looking at in terms of our next purchase. AT&T has just as good of reception in the places where I live and work, so why shouldn't I switch carriers when possible to those who support my device of choice/purchase? Verizon simply has to ask itself if losing a single % point of its customers to their top competitor is worth their current policy of poor support/communication. I would think not, but at this point they seem to think so.

[#16]

Fun? Not really

I pity folks who come here stating how this carrier provided updated OS or patches faster or who care about their customers or who post erroneous complaint information to force verizon to update any device be it Windows or Android devices.

The device when purchased came with an OS that worked. Period.

Verizon and other carriers are not obligated to do upgrades.

They provide you access to the cellular and data network

For an example, you leave for AT&T and at another do called got to have update comes along and AT&T does not give it.

Should you then simply complain as with verizon and then leave for Sprint? T-Mobile?

It is a vicious cycle.

[JIce88]

Elector

You are clearly telling people to not even complain about their dissatisfaction. AT&T did a great job getting their devices updated to Cyan, so why should I not switch when it becomes practical. AT&T has earned my respect, and that respect will hold till they lose it. Fortunately for Verizon I'm contract bound to them for now. It's won't be a vicious cycle if atleast on company shows a commitment to the platform.

[Tidbits]

Go to their forums... Understand what Elector is saying. Next time around your opinion will change. AT&T isn't always the last. Verizon isn't always either. It's a crapshoot base on which development team from the manufacturer completes their projects first.

[JIce88]

Yes, their forums are filled with the people who were last to get it, but at least AT&T did a rollout of it and now completed. I'm sure if Verizon released Cyan for Icon and 928, 822 users would feel a little left behind, but atleast the 822 users would know some effort was put into it.

[Tidbits]

JIce88 wrote:

Yes, their forums are filled with the people who were last to get it, but at least AT&T did a rollout of it and now completed. I'm sure if Verizon released Cyan for Icon and 928, 822 users would feel a little left behind, but atleast the 822 users would know some effort was put into it.

Like I said...  This time around... Next time around and they are last then what?  AT&T isn't always the first.  They gained your respect and would they just as quickly lose it the next time around?  What if Verizon was first next time around?  Before this recent update just basic fixes AT&T and Verizon were dead last...

[rednibkram]

Yes, and AT&T listened to the complaints of their customers.  That is the reason they stepped up their game and released these updates faster.  I have a friend of mine who works at AT&T in the complaint department and verified that AT&T has made changes to the way the update the firmware/software for Windows Phone devices.  That is all he could tell me, but suggested if I'm going to be a Windows Phone user, I should switch back to AT&T as they will most likely be the first to get updates from this point forward.