On Feb 12, Verizon posted the Android 6.0 update page for the Turbo 2, apparently indicating an imminent release of the update, then a few minutes later the page was taken down. Unfortunately, news outlets everywhere started incorrectly reporting that the 6.0 OTA was being released. Consulta: http://www.droid-life.com/2016/02/12/droid-turbo-2-receiving-update-to-android-6-0-marshmallow/
Just looking for an explanation from Verizon. Has the update been post-poned again? If so, how long? Is there a show-stopping bug that is the issue? Is there a Verizon webmaster now looking for a new job? etc? Thanks in advance.
Web sites are still posting incorrect info as of 15min ago. Every post about the update seems to be a cut and paste of the same information. But still not a word from Verizon.
Can't say where but I was told that there where several reports of the T2 saying update was not compatible when trying to install. So update was pulled until the problem is solved.
Probably there bloatware delaying it cant release an update till they can somehow monetize it. Almost considering going over to apple because of the b.s way Android updates are handled.
Unfortunately, it's the way that carriers handle the updates that's the problem, not really an 'Android' problem. For example, see Nexus devices or devices sold direct from OEMs unlocked. Those devices get updates quickly (no carrier interference). Verizon has always been painfully slow to release updates, and continues to be so. And strangely, they are even worse about updating their own 'flagship' Droid line.
^^ that I'd wrong...
Nexus devices get updated quickly because the source code was specifically built for those devices. Manufacturers only get the HAL when Google is finished and they have to wait for Google to wait for the rest of the code. When Google finally finishes it Manufactures have to start incorporating their code to the source code. You can't compare Nexus devices with everything else.
When a discussion comes up about whether software updates are an 'Android' problem vs XYZ problem, I think its fair to point to Nexus devices, as those are running 'pure' Android (although in a very technical sense, even Nexuses aren't running absolutely 'pure' Android, but that's another discussion) and are sold directly from Google - thus completely (usually) eliminating any carrier delays to software updates. Those devices have no added tweaks from OEMs nor any bloatware from carriers. Thus, they get updated quickly. Android source code is always compiled into specific builds for each device. Carrier sold devices add at least 3 to 4 steps to the OTA release process, which typically amounts to significant delays compared to Nexus or unlocked OEM devices. My point is that its not Google holding up the train on our Droid devices, it is Verizon full stop.
Again you still can't compare. Google has the source code. They have the unfair advantage of that. I bet it would take them longer if they didn't have that luxury. Here's some food for thought. Do you remember when Google did an AOSP project with Sony? The PDK was born from it. What did they learn? Carrier testing wasn't the biggest delay(showing my shocked face). It averaged 1 month with 2 months being the longest. What actually took the longest and averaged 8 months in the states(5-6 months elsewhere) was the certification process. Google made the PDK to get devices into the certification process sooner to shorten the time of overall delivery which it does help. Now think what if Google didn't control that code for the Nexus devices?
Seriously though. You buy a skinned device expect long delays anyway. Buy a device close to stock get faster results, but it isn't always better for a lot of users.
Funny thing is Verizon has no problems updating the LG or Sammy phones But there own Exclusive Droid line seems to baffle them.
Did you ever consider they (Motorola or Verizon Wireless) discovered a last minute bug that was a serious problem enough to halt the update?
I'm most definitely NOT a VZW employee. If a post answered your question, please mark it as the answer.