Throughout Windows Phone 7's development process, Microsoft was clear about how updates would work. Microsoft would deliver them according to Microsoft's own timetable, with a mix of small updates, delivered over-the-air, and larger ones delivered over USB through the Zune software.

This news was warmly received. Many smartphone platforms have the technical ability to be updated, but that technical ability rarely translates into real, substantial updates being delivered to end users. OEMs and carriers alike don't want old phones to gain new features; they would much rather you buy a new phone instead. Add to this the technical complexity of ensuring updates work with the wide range of custom hardware and software that these OEMs and carriers tend to include, and it's not surprising that almost all Windows Mobile phones, and many Android phones, are slow to receive software updates, if they even get them at all.

The iPhone is a refreshing change to this industry convention. Apple has published regular software updates to both fix bugs and improve functionality on its phones, and these updates have been made available to everyone, regardless of which network operator they use. Your iPhone actually gets better the longer you own it. Microsoft's promise to provide the same experience for Windows Phone 7 users was hence a very welcome decision indeed.

Unfortunately, that story has now changed, and Microsoft isn't being entirely forthcoming about it.

OTA updates are out, apparently. They were available on the pre-release developer handsets, but for the production hardware, they're out. Maybe not forever, but, citing a desire to be consistent and reliable, as well as the ability to make a full phone backup when tethered, the current operating system will only support USB updates. Aesthetically, that's a little frustrating; it makes the phone dependent on a regular PC rather than a truly standalone device.

Frustrating, yes, but disastrous, no. As long as we'll get our updates without carrier or OEM interference, even if only through USB, that's still good enough; we'll still get new features and bugfixes on our existing phones.

Sadly, it looks as if that too many not come to pass: carriers will, in fact, be able to hold back updates to some extent. Worse, it seems that Microsoft is doing everything in its power to avoid giving a straight answer about the situation.

Blocked updates

At the Windows Phone 7 reviewers' workshop, the new situation was clearly explained by Joe Belfiore, corporate vice president and director of Windows Phone Program Management. Paul Thurrott quoted Belfiore in his review of the operating system:

We build updates for all Windows Phone users, but must certify them with the carriers. They'll happen on a regular cadence like they do on the PC. If a carrier wants to stop an update they can. But they will get it out on the next release. Updates are cumulative. If one [carrier] doesn't get their testing done in time, the next push date comes and it goes out then. Carriers could in fact block updates to sell you a phone. That can happen. But we don't expect that to happen. We are not going to push updates onto carrier networks that they have not tested. Microsoft is being very trusting of the carriers here. This is very different from the situation with Windows Mobile where every phone was very different. With Windows Phone, there is no impact on OEM code, network code, and so on. Yes, there are upgrades that will require a full test pass. But most will not.

That's a very different story, and a much less pretty one. I understand the carrier desire to test; that's understandable and desirable. But Belfiore went way past that. If what Belfiore told Thurrott is true—and given his position in the company, you'd like to think it is—then the carrier involvement is much greater than it is on the iPhone, for example. "Carriers could in fact block updates to sell you a phone. That can happen."

Paul Thurrott's interpretation remained somewhat positive. About thirty minutes into Windows Weekly podcast 179, he detailed his take: carriers would be able to delay a release by one release cycle, but would have to ship the following update, and since updates are cumulative, the later update would include all the features of the earlier one. I wish I shared his optimism, because to me "Carriers could in fact block updates to sell you a phone" is unambiguous, and allows carriers to permanently block upgrades to some handsets, if they want.

I think Paul is interpreting "they will get it out on the next release" as an affirmative imperative statement—they will get it out on the next release, they must get it out on the next release, they have no option but to get it out on the next release, and hence they can only delay by one upgrade cycle. I'm not, because that doesn't quite jibe with the assertion that "Carriers could in fact block updates [plural] to sell you a phone". So I think Joe Belfiore meant it conditionally; they will get that update's features in the next release if they roll that out. In other words, the updates are cumulative, and a carrier can't pick update N + 1 without also including update N.

Belfiore goes on to say that he doesn't think it will happen, and that the carriers understand that end-users want the value that comes with phone software upgrades. Like Thurrott, I think this is wildly optimistic. If a carrier decides not to offer updates, that will be their choice, and there's nothing that either Microsoft or the user can do about it.

This is so far from what was originally promised. We were originally promised iPhone-like upgrades for Windows Phone 7. Better, in fact, due to the over-the-air updating. And we're not going to get it. Now, I don't think the situation will be as bad as it was with Windows Mobile. I don't think it will even be as bad as it is for Android. But it's not what we were promised. It has the potential to be the exact opposite of what we promised. "Carriers could in fact block updates to sell you a phone."

And if you ask Microsoft about this, they won't tell you the full story. Ed Bott asked and was told:

Microsoft will push Windows Phone 7 software updates to end users and all Windows Phone 7 devices will be eligible for updates.

I asked and was told the same thing. That's the official line. On the face of it, well, it looks like good news. Maybe the carriers can't screw things up after all? But I think it's (deliberately) avoiding the question. It looks like an answer, but it isn't.

What that first part of that statement is telling us ("Microsoft will push Windows Phone 7 software updates to end users") is that Windows Phone 7 updates will be hosted on Microsoft servers and delivered through Microsoft channels (the Zune software). When a user is allowed to update then the update will be pushed by Microsoft. We know that already, and that isn't contentious. It's still progress—we won't have to hit up our OEM or telco website to get the update—but it's stuff we already knew.

The second part ("and all Windows Phone 7 devices will be eligible for updates") makes it look like the updates can't be blocked. But it's not quite saying that. Just because a device is "eligible" for an update doesn't automatically mean that a carrier will permit it. To clarify: all the hardware currently or imminently shipping for Windows Phone 7 is essentially the same. There are some variations (Samsung uses its own processors, there are different screen sizes, some have a bit more built-in storage, etc.), but the devices are all extremely similar. They have to be, because they're all built to a fairly rigorously controlled specification.

So if a software update is released for this hardware specification, for these first generation Windows Phone 7 devices, the software update will work for all of them. We can see a time in the future when that won't be the case—for example, in two or three years Microsoft might decide to change the screen resolution, or dictate more RAM, and stop supporting these first generation devices—but for the near term, they're all essentially equivalent. If one model can be upgraded, then all the models can be upgraded. In other words, all the devices will be eligible for the updates.

What this doesn't mean is that a carrier can't block some users from upgrading their phones. The devices may be eligible for (that is, compatible with) the update, so if the owner has the device unlocked it will be upgradable, but if they leave it locked, the carrier can still block it, as Belfiore said.

Carriers in control

When pushed for further clarification, Microsoft would not budge. The company is happy to talk about how carriers will test updates and deliver feedback to Microsoft, and is happy to explain how most updates should not require a full test from the carrier as they should only change isolated parts of the operating system, and so on and so forth, but what the company won't do is conclusively confirm or deny Joe Belfiore's key statement: "Carriers could in fact block updates to sell you a phone."

Even with Paul Thurrott's more optimistic interpretation, we don't really know what it means to say that carriers can block an update for one update cycle, because we don't know exactly how regular updates will be. Belfiore spoke of a regular cadence, but he also said "like they do on the PC." Well, that could mean anything. Regular like the three years between Windows releases? The eighteen months between service packs? The monthly security updates? There's a range of options.

Quarterly updates are perhaps most likely; copy and paste functionality has been promised in early 2011, so an update in, say, late January would be coming three months after the initial launch and nicely meet the "early 2011" deadline. This would mean, in turn, that a carrier could block an update for three months, and that's not an attractive proposition at all.

I think this lack of clarity over updates is hugely detrimental to the new smartphone platform. An upgrade process that truly takes the carriers and OEMs out of the equation is something that is good for every user. It might not be so good for the carriers and OEMs, but for people who actually own and use the phones—and Microsoft—it is far and away the best situation. It's the situation we were promised, and to really compete head on with the iPhone, I think it's the situation that Microsoft needs: it gives Apple an enormous ability to add value to its phones, and I don't think Microsoft can afford to give Apple that kind of a unique capability.

It also leads me to think that the only reason Microsoft won't say that Belfiore "misspoke" is because he didn't. I fear that the unpalatable truth is that Microsoft has let the carriers get involved in the delivery of updates, and is now too ashamed to admit it.