Would you pay for software updates
 

Apple charge $4.95 for the latest software update. Would you pay for N900 software updates?

Re: Would you pay for software updates
 

Id pay if it offers dual booting w/ nxt gen Symbian =D

Re: Would you pay for software updates
 

OMFG I hope your joking......:eek::eek::eek::eek:

Re: Would you pay for software updates
 

Haha nice.

It depends on what the update involved, but since this is supposed to be open source arena I'm pretty sure it wouldn't go over well. I'd rather pay a small price for the app. Already paying a large amount for the phone/tablet should cover updates. At least paying for apps will go straight to the developer (usually) and not a large corporation that makes their money other ways than software updates.

Re: Would you pay for software updates
 

i have 2 answers
ANSWER 1: no b/c I don't see why I should have to pay to update a device what is buggy like n900, it should be put correct free. if they was to charge to put a device in stable state then we'll end up having Companies intentionally putting out buggy devices so they can make a quick dollar on the update.

ANSWER 2: if the device was stable and practically bug-free to start with then I would not mind paying for new features in a update as long as the features make a substantial difference to the device's usability

Re: Would you pay for software updates
 

Apple also sucks, but that doesn't mean Maemo is going to join it :D

Re: Would you pay for software updates
 

The whole idea of buying the phone that uses free opensource operating system is that you get the software for free and can do with it what ever you want. And that anyone can contribute and make enhancements to the software.

Re: Would you pay for software updates
 

Not everyone can change something in software. But at least everyone can test it and write bug reports. It's a contribution too. And debugging of a complex system is not an easy task.
There are not so many closed components in maemo on support of which we relay on Nokia. Even if Nokia stops support of old devises community can backport new software on them. And this changes then would be available to everyone. And paid support will only lead to piracy. I think it would be more profitable for Nokia to release a new devise when to provide paid support for old ones.

Re: Would you pay for software updates
 

Not only does paying for updates blow up the maemo spirit and way of thinking, but it would also be pretty much wrong, considering the updates will be mostly bug fixes or enhancements that have already been promised to get people to buy the thing.
The latter applies to apple too, but they never bothered with right or wrong

Re: Would you pay for software updates
 

So what kind of software updates are we talking about? Software fixes, like from Maemo 5 to 5.1? Or to subsidize making Maemo 6 run on Maemo 5 devices (i.e. the N900)?

Re: Would you pay for software updates
 

I'd happily pay $10 to run Harmattan on the N900, but I wouldn't be happy to pay for bug fixes to Maemo 5 (Fremantle).

Re: Would you pay for software updates
 

The vote should be for full platform updates, which are once by year or so like Maemo 5 to 6. Now its bit unprecice.

2 years for free and then with money. There should be an motivator for the backporting, as it costs money for the company. Of course free is free, but I'm realist and I remember how it has been so far.

Re: Would you pay for software updates
 

No, no, no. Now I'd pay to run a new OS like Harmattan, but only if forced to. Honestly, isn't Maemo supposed to be an open OS? This ain't Apple, and I am glad it isn't. The day Nokia tries that crap is the day I join forces with the Linux community to build my own OS of some sort. I'm praying for the day I can buy a device with no OS or an open source OS, and I can choose to load Symbian or Maemo on it if I choose.

Re: Would you pay for software updates
 

Well, you already can, can you not?

Re: Would you pay for software updates
 

Only Mer, but I prefer Maemo and Symbian. I want to be able to download one of the two OS images and load and run it regardless of device. Mer is cool, but not on Maemo 5's level yet.

Re: Would you pay for software updates
 

I think since everything is open source, upgrades should be free. That being said, I wouldn't mind having a bounty system where us non developers can contribute money into a pot for new features or apps.

Re: Would you pay for software updates
 

Looking at the comments on here I think that it is clear that; people would not be happy to pay for "windows update" equivalent, updates of maemo 5, but they would pay for things like changing the OS etc etc

Personally, why would you want to change the OS in the first place? Maemo is free, the apps are free (baring the 3rd party guys that will eventually catch on :D ), and you have a great community all after the same goal, improving the end user experience, the OS and the apps. Why go for Windows Mobile/Symbian etc over Maemo when they are so closed?

I would not expect to pay for things that involved the OS directly.

I think in order to make this platform grow there needs to be the understanding that this is a Linux based device and the same ideas need to be carried across; it is all about community and being open.

Paid apps will destroy this idea and turn the N900 into an iPhone.

Re: Would you pay for software updates
 

I'm glad you asked. :D I have strong sentiment for Symbian. Plus, once Maemo 6 and Symbian^4 come out, they'll run the same apps. So one is more phone centric, and the other is more workstation centric. I like to either use my old devices as backups or pass them on to friends and family. Some of them aren't as advanced technically, and may benefit from a simpler Symbian. Or some of the features of Symbian may not be available in Maemo, like ASR. So when I'm walking my dog, I really want a Symbian device for ASR so I can have a free hand.

Open isn't alway convenient when on the go, at least not in my case. For the last 3 years, I've grown used to using my Symbian device as my main computer, always doing my RSS browsing and research as well as posting to the blog while walking my 75 lb. pit bull, but without ASR, T9, and portrait view, I'm forced to leave my blogging at the wayside. Can't do landscape QWERTY with a APA champion weight pulling beast tethered to my arm. Sometimes a more simplified device is better as a backup device or for those fishing trips where you don't need all of your power, but more simplicity instead.

Ideally, I'd like a dual boot phone...

It hasn't destroyed Linux, and it won't hurt Maemo in the least bit. In fact, paid apps will have to be damn good to compete with FOSS, so I like paid apps for Linux. I'll always support free, but look at Linux in terms of linear video editing software. The best solutions are paid, but the free solutions are competitive. It breeds competition and innovation.

Re: Would you pay for software updates
 

I fully agree on this. Won't pay for bug fixes, would pay for new features.

Re: Would you pay for software updates
 

Amen Chris!

Sometimes open or closed is not the point, and not the beginning or end of all things for a lot of people. It can be if it is open enough.

On the other hand, Symbian is going to be fully open source, will cover a wider range of devices and it already has many things that Maemo doesn't (and that people want). I like Symbian, and can't wait for ^3 and ^4.

Re: Would you pay for software updates
 

My original intention of this post was really to see if people would pay for MAJOR software updates. ie Maemo 6 back ported and available on N900.

But have left it more broad to see what thoughts were out there. I'm not clear in my mind how much responsibility a Device manufacturer has in continuing to offer updates on devices as they get older. On the other hand there has not been a paid option on Nokia devices to date, and I actually think that Apple have been wise to offer a paid option even for three year old devices. It keeps them in the applications eco-system, which in turn creates a positive spiral for Apps developers.

Re: Would you pay for software updates
 

Well let me put it like this:
Nokia is using mostly Linux to create Maemo. Linux is maintained by various organizations, saving Nokia big money. I'll be damned if they suddenly start charging me for device support. And if the N900 meets the hardware requirements, there shouldn't be any extra development costs to get it to run Maemo 6. Now if you mean forcing them to lower the hardware requirements of Maemo 6 to make the N900 compatible, I'm against anything of the sort.

I wouldn't use Apple as any kind of example. The "legacy" devices they charge for updates are simply the same device, just with slightly slower hardware. There may be added support for new hardware, but the software has nothing revolutionary to preventing it from running on older hardware. They're just being predatory, just like blocking Flash in the browser to create the need for more apps.

Since they make money off of the apps, wouldn't it serve their best interests to allow those devices to run the newer OS? Since they enjoy massive record breaking profits, shouldn't they show some goodwill to consumers that create those profits and not charge them for filling the functionality holes in the OS? The predatory practices of Apple should be something Nokia avoids. As the market leader, they don't need such underhanded tactics. Nokia could theoretically lower device ownership costs for consumers. Apple has no interests at heart other than its own, which will soon be evident when they're the only mobile OS unwilling to allow a port of the Qt frameworks, Java, Silverlight, or Flash. Their motive is profits at the expense of the user's experience or access to technology or services. Nokia's history has been about enabling developers and services for greater consumer access.

So keep your Apple business models. They've had a decent two year run, but have done little to lowr Nokia from its throne. Linux allows them to save on development costs, and they're able to pass those savings on to us or reallocate the money to research and development and better services. What has Apple done with its profits to better the consumer experience, to allow greater access, or make their devices cheaper?

So naw, naw, HELL TO the NAW, I ain't paying. And any developer supporting an OS should run if the manufacturer forces such. An OS is a platform, and as long as that platform's hardware doesn't drastically change, neither will its software, so no cost should be needed. And unsupported outdated hardware should be repurposed for the lower end OSes. Let me install an open source Symbian on my older devices if the new OS is incompatible.

Re: Would you pay for software updates
 

I'd be willing to pay $20 for major OS updates, say Fremantle to Harmattan on the N900, because (a) it's not really much money (I spend that much on a good lunch), and (b) I know it takes a lot of work to implement that.

You may think I'm one of those commercially minded closed source loving folk. I'm not; the openness, and the large proportion of open source used and available on the device is what attracts me to it, and I will be contributing to that. (I've been doing so for a long time, to some of those Linux components under the hood.)

The reason I don't mind paying a little is because I believe the job "make Harmattan work on the N900" is a big job that the open source unpaid volunteers will struggle to do.

It's one thing to say that it could be done for free and that's it's free software, but it's quite another to notice that unless Nokia's paid a huge amount of cash to staff and/or contractors to work on it full time, then it will likely never get done.

However, if they charged $20 and refused to provide properly open source licensed source code that can be obtained and shared freely, then I would object.

The conclusion from this is that I would be happy to find an "Update to Harmattan" "app" in Ovi store, and I'd pay that much for it and to know it is the officially packaged and supported (with warranty) version, but I would only be happy if I knew the open source components (at least) could be obtained elsewhere and redistributed as Free Software (the GNU meaning of Free).

In other words, despite knowing that I could get it (or most of it - those parts build on open source) for free elsewhere, I would actively choose to pay for the officially packaged version to support Nokia in this regard. As I said, $20 isn't that much.

Re: Would you pay for software updates
 

They don't need our $20 because they're honest about their motives in maintaining and supporting these OSes. They stand to profit from the advertising and services markets, with Maemo and Symbian as the delivry systems. They'll make tons per device this way, so have no need to further gouge consumers. Once Qt is ported to another OS besides Maemo, Symbian, and WinMo, Nokia's services, Ovi Store, and devices will have massive reach and profitability.

Re: Would you pay for software updates
 

I voted no, but I would be willing to pay $5 here and there for some added features. What those are I don't know, but if it was worth it, I wouldn't lose sleep over paying a little. A donation would be a better payment method. Some with give, most wont, but you're still getting something without making everyone angry about the "buggy phone".

Re: Would you pay for software updates
 

now a donation is all good. But a required payment? They better not even think about it. Don't forget that in many countries, the mobile costs major money already, equal to months of wages. No reason this technology should only be for the rich. With the money they'll make from Ovi, their investment is recoupable.

Re: Would you pay for software updates
 

I hope they're not planning on making money out of advertising or selling services to me. A part of the concept of 'free' is "freedom from" as well as "freedom to" and I'm happy to be free of advertising right now, and have no need for commercial services from Nokia. I would however be happy to cough up for a good Maps app.

Re: Would you pay for software updates
 

I agree 100% but would like to also add that it a.so depends on the price. i mean people (mainly the private devs who make things happen like the guy who made petrovitch...KUDOS BTW) should recieve a profit for there hard work. but i cant see paying apple like expensive prices for software that should have been included in the phone. its not fair to sell a crapy product @ top dollar prices and then nickle and dime people to death to upgrade it. thats a apple thing. it is also disengenuous and un fair to the end consumer like my self who has been with nokia for over 10 years! and mainly becuase they dont nickle and dime me for things like nokia software updater! also symbian phones have a gazzillion apps for FREE! You should hear me clowning the apple guys and the motorola users and the blackberry folks for all they pay for simple things like nokia pc suit! I brought my phones from NOKIA for reasons like this.... dont unjustly charge me for upgrades unless u send me a 70dollar rebate for each phone i ever brought from nokia that they now charge for software upgrades.

Re: Would you pay for software updates
 

Well Nokia doesn't require you to choose their services. And the advertising hasn't even begun yet. They've been pushing around the idea of subsidizing devices by allowing adware to run on your homescreen with carrier shared revenues, or you can opt out and avoid the ads and have no subsidy.

Re: Would you pay for software updates
 

I'd pirate it if it was possible :p
İf not I'd ONLY buy it if it added a feature that I really wanted.

Re: Would you pay for software updates
 

I'd pay for a major upgrade to Maemo 6.

Re: Would you pay for software updates
 

I would ONLY if the hardware wouldn't otherwise be supported. But if another TI OMAP 3430 device with a similar GPU device ran M6, I BETTER get the update.