Android OS upgradability

Grendels

Are there any particular Android companies or phone series that offer good upgradability of the OS?

About 6 years ago I had an Android phone that I could upgrade the OS perhaps twice only. I'm hoping things have changed since then, so I can get something with more upgrade longevity, rather than having to buy a new phone every year.

If you've had an Android phone for more than a year:

• How long have you had it for?
• How well has it done with OS upgrades?

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

A google phone will be your best bet. Have a look at the Pixel range.

testicles

This post has been deleted.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

Google are promising updates for at least 2 years on Pixel models.

I have not seen any other manufacturer guarantee or promise updates.

It is not in the interests of phone manufacturers to bring the 'latest and greatest' to older handsets. It forces you to buy newer models if you want the latest features.

testicles wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

rebeve

Root and the a custom rom is the way to go .

D'Peoples Voice

Grendels wrote: »

Are there any particular Android companies or phone series that offer good upgradability of the OS?

I'm hoping things have changed since then, so I can get something with more upgrade longevity, rather than having to buy a new phone every year.

You do know that most of the blame for the lack of upgrade lie with the maker of the CPU(for example
Qualcomm snapdragon, Huawei hisilicon, Samsung Exynos or MediaTek hello). If they don't realise the drivers, the phone manufacturers are screwed. Of that three, MediaTek are the worst - don't believe they have released drivers for Nougat yet.

As for the best manufacturer, the ones that have the lightest skin should be first as they have less reprogramming and testing required. So, that should be Motorola & Sony (outside of pixel/nexus) with snapdragons. Samsung with Exynos can be good too because being the CPU chip manufacturers they have early access to the driver likewise Huawei have access to their own CPU drivers. I believe Xiaomi are soon to start using their own CPU chip so they should be quicker with updates.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

listermint

Motorola.

HTC generally have the best record, disregarding Nexus/Pixel devices. They update for 2 years, so you will move on to at least 2 further versions of android. For example, the M9 started on lollipop, and has gone to marshmallow and nougat since. They also have probably the most active dev community, so lots of options for custom ROMs.

corwill

Basil3 wrote: »

HTC generally have the best record, disregarding Nexus/Pixel devices. They update for 2 years, so you will move on to at least 2 further versions of android. For example, the M9 started on lollipop, and has gone to marshmallow and nougat since. They also have probably the most active dev community, so lots of options for custom ROMs.

I bought the HTC 10 largely because of that reputation, but I've not been blown away. I'm not in any great rush to get from 7.0 to 7.1.x, but to still be on the January security patch is less than impressive.

corwill

corwill wrote: »

I bought the HTC 10 largely because of that reputation, but I've not been blown away. I'm not in any great rush to get from 7.0 to 7.1.x, but to still be on the January security patch is less than impressive.

Yeah, their Nougat update to EU unlocked devices was a mess, to be fair

StereoSound

Those new Nokia phones are promising fast android updates when they come on the market.

D'Peoples Voice

StereoSound wrote: »

Those new Nokia phones are promising fast android updates when they come on the market.

Were they not promising fast security updates rather than OS updates?

learn_more

Grendels wrote: »

Are there any particular Android companies or phone series that offer good upgradability of the OS?

About 6 years ago I had an Android phone that I could upgrade the OS perhaps twice only. I'm hoping things have changed since then, so I can get something with more upgrade longevity, rather than having to buy a new phone every year.

If you've had an Android phone for more than a year:

• How long have you had it for?
• How well has it done with OS upgrades?

The upgrades you get on android are utterly trivial. There would be no reason to buy a new phone every year.

If you really want the latest version of android then you must seek out a phone that is popular on XDA where ROM development is high.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Sleeper12

I have an S6 & it's 2 years old. There's any update on the way for it.

cal60

For me this limited support issue is a major disadvantage with Android. Imagine if you had to replace your laptop after two years to keep current on security. Not sure about Apple as I don't have an iPhone but I know my iPad has until recently been receiving OS updates.

I'm beginning to feel that carrying a computer round in your pocket (smartphone) is not logical - a phone should be primarily a phone rather than the phone component almost being an afterthought.

I went for a Moto G4 last year as I read that they were fairly good at updates ( I did receive nougat around the end of March I think) . However I found the close to pure android to be somewhat barebones e.g I could not save contacts to a "phone account" and had to search around to find an app to provide this functionality.

cal60

cal60 wrote: »

For me this limited support issue is a major disadvantage with Android. Imagine if you had to replace your laptop after two years to keep current on security. Not sure about Apple as I don't have an iPhone but I know my iPad has until recently been receiving OS updates.

I'm beginning to feel that carrying a computer round in your pocket (smartphone) is not logical - a phone should be primarily a phone rather than the phone component almost being an afterthought.

I went for a Moto G4 last year as I read that they were fairly good at updates ( I did receive nougat around the end of March I think) . However I found the close to pure android to be somewhat barebones e.g I could not save contacts to a "phone account" and had to search around to find an app to provide this functionality.

What's a "phone account"?

Support isn't really an issue. Your phone still functions long after the android updates cease. You just don't have the latest version of android. It's no different to someone with a Windows PC who never updates from the OS that came on it.

cal60

Basil3 wrote: »

What's a "phone account"?

Support isn't really an issue. Your phone still functions long after the android updates cease. You just don't have the latest version of android. It's no different to someone with a Windows PC who never updates from the OS that came on it.

A phone account is where the information resides on the device only and not just a google account with sync turned off.

Point about a Windows PC is that securit updates will be made available for up to 10 years. If you continue using an older version of android then you won't receive security updates.

cal60

cal60 wrote: »

A phone account is where the information resides on the device only and not just a google account with sync turned off.

Point about a Windows PC is that securit updates will be made available for up to 10 years. If you continue using an older version of android then you won't receive security updates.

I guess the real question is why would you only want local contacts?

With Google treble, updates will be faster and I'm assuming they can be provided for longer. I'm looking forward to seeing how that pans out.

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I have an S6 & it's 2 years old. There's any update on the way for it.

Update arrived yesterday it's now on Android 7

cal60

Basil3 wrote: »

I guess the real question is why would you only want local contacts?

With Google treble, updates will be faster and I'm assuming they can be provided for longer. I'm looking forward to seeing how that pans out.

Treble looks very interesting - I hadn't heard of it . Thanks for the info.

Regarding local contacts . I have enough grey hairs to be able to well remember mobile phones before iPhone , android etc and the simple answer is privacy . One could still have a backup without having to use the cloud ( a.k.a " someone else's server ":) )

@ sleeper12 - great news . I'm glad you received the update.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Patww79

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Oh ye of little faith. The existing Pixel will be using treble when Android O drops later this year. From a technical point of view, it's definitely doable.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Patww79

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I was referring to you saying that it would never see the light of day.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Patww79

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That will happen. Google are keeping HTC alive at the moment, with that and the pixel devices.

god's toy

Grendels wrote: »

Are there any particular Android companies or phone series that offer good upgradability of the OS?

About 6 years ago I had an Android phone that I could upgrade the OS perhaps twice only. I'm hoping things have changed since then, so I can get something with more upgrade longevity, rather than having to buy a new phone every year.

If you've had an Android phone for more than a year:

• How long have you had it for?
• How well has it done with OS upgrades?

not a phone but, If you're talking Tables then the Nvidia Shield has fully received official updates since KitKat! Currently on its 4th version of Android, 7.0 Nougat

Dravokivich

Basil3 wrote: »

What's a "phone account"?

Support isn't really an issue. Your phone still functions long after the android updates cease. You just don't have the latest version of android. It's no different to someone with a Windows PC who never updates from the OS that came on it.

It's very different than a pc. Apps have requirements that get updated based on the version of Android you are running.

Dravokivich

Dravokivich wrote: »

It's very different than a pc. Apps have requirements that get updated based on the version of Android you are running.

But you could have an Android device running kit kat, which would essentially work the same as the day you bought it.

ED E

Treble cant go anywhere until ARM/Qualcomm do a big body of work to help write up the abstraction layer they're adding. Its a hugely wide API to cover every subsystem in the phone. Whether MTK will keep up is another question.

ED E

Basil3 wrote: »

But you could have an Android device running kit kat, which would essentially work the same as the day you bought it.

Try todays FB app on a KK phone and come back to us.

ED E

ED E wrote: »

Try todays FB app on a KK phone and come back to us.

A huge proportion of Android users worldwide are on KitKat and use Facebook. They might not be able to run the latest play store version visible to N users, but there would be a functioning version available to them.

Not having Facebook could hardly be viewed as a negative anyway :pac:

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

cal60

Basil3 wrote: »

But you could have an Android device running kit kat, which would essentially work the same as the day you bought it.

True - but you could say the same of a PC running Windows XP and would you use such a PC online ?

cal60

cal60 wrote: »

True - but you could say the same of a PC running Windows XP and would you use such a PC online ?

I don't know why you would compare XP to KK. XP is a 15 year old OS. A better comparison would be Windows 7, and yes....I'm sure there's lots of people out there happily running Win 7.

Dravokivich

Basil3 wrote: »

I don't know why you would compare XP to KK. XP is a 15 year old OS. A better comparison would be Windows 7, and yes....I'm sure there's lots of people out there happily running Win 7.

You're missing the point that I made. The other guy just referenced Facebook as it's a common app in use by a lot of people. But there's functional apps, not just social media that have already set there requirements to lollipop as a minimum.

beauf

Apple are the best for updates. Windows Phone was also good.

Android is brutal. Probably easier just to sell and upgrade if you want to have the latest updates.

Dravokivich

It's a pain with budget and mid range to an extent. They typically have a very short retail period so for the limited numbers of devices sold it's not really worth having updates run through. Apple only focus on premium goods and like premium Android's have a longer period for updating. I think there's a lot of folks who don't take that into consideration.

cal60

Dravokivich wrote: »

It's a pain with budget and mid range to an extent. They typically have a very short retail period so for the limited numbers of devices sold it's not really worth having updates run through. Apple only focus on premium goods and like premium Android's have a longer period for updating. I think there's a lot of folks who don't take that into consideration.

A case of "you get what you pay for" ? Question is whether what is essentially a communication device is worth €500+ ? Basic phone + tablet or laptop a better investment ?

@beauf . I agree with your analysis ( off topic - have you suggestions as to best way to sell ?)

beauf

beauf wrote: »

Apple are the best for updates. Windows Phone was also good.

Android is brutal. Probably easier just to sell and upgrade if you want to have the latest updates.

But do people want the latest updates? I'm an android nut, but I'd say the average user couldn't even tell you the changes that happened from LP > MM > N. You could hand them a phone and they wouldn't know the android version, even if you allowed them to try to find it in settings.

There's also a huge argument that things get worse with updates. Look at all the S7 users complaining of battery life since N arrived.

cal60

Basil3 wrote: »

But do people want the latest updates? I'm an android nut, but I'd say the average user couldn't even tell you the changes that happened from LP > MM > N. You could hand them a phone and they wouldn't know the android version, even if you allowed them to try to find it in settings.

I think you are right there. I reckon the average user just wants a phone that looks good and works for them - they don't consider security (which in my opinion is a mistake)

beauf

Basil3 wrote: »

But do people want the latest updates? I'm an android nut, but I'd say the average user couldn't even tell you the changes that happened from LP > MM > N. You could hand them a phone and they wouldn't know the android version, even if you allowed them to try to find it in settings.

There's also a huge argument that things get worse with updates. Look at all the S7 users complaining of battery life since N arrived.

The main reason for updates is security.

That people are ignorant of the issue doesn't mean is not an issue.

beauf

beauf wrote: »

The main reason for updates is security.

That people are ignorant of the issue doesn't mean is not an issue.

How big an issue is it? I'd guess that less than 1% of android users are running Android N on the latest security patches. How is everyone else surviving?

Horace Cope

beauf wrote: »

Apple are the best for updates. Windows Phone was also good.

Android is brutal. Probably easier just to sell and upgrade if you want to have the latest updates.

Disagree with you over Apple, their browser & webview is not updated near as often as Android.
For most of us, almost everything we do on our phones depends on the browser & webview. A quick comparison on http://html5test.com/ can show you how far behind their browser is. Android's browser and webview is updated every 6 weeks, irrespective of phone manufacturer.

Yes, they (Apple) may update the OS for longer periods, but less of Android depends on OS updates, more of it depends on Google Play Services. So, you're not comparing like with like. But yes, their marketing around updates is amazing, Google could learn a lot about how to bullsh1t people like Apple do. Try using a iphone 4s with iOS 9 and then come back and tell me it's a great thing that they update the OS for years.

beauf

iPhone 4s had 5yrs of updates. From IOS 5 to 9. Its main issue was low ram for IOS 9. not much you can do about that. Up to that point didn't hear much complaining.
iPhone 5s was launched 2013 still runs the latest OS/Software fine.

Android you'd be lucky to get 2yrs out of it. Probably annoying you long before that. With low to mid end phones even shorter than that. I don't use an iPhone. But with Android, forced obsolescence due to lack of OS updates or Applications incompatible is a really pita in our house with similar android phones.

That html5test is more about open standards and proprietary strategies than security.

beauf

beauf wrote: »

iPhone 4s had 5yrs of updates. From IOS 5 to 9. Its main issue was low ram for IOS 9. not much you can do about that. Up to that point didn't hear much complaining.
iPhone 5s was launched 2013 still runs the latest OS/Software fine.

Android you'd be lucky to get 2yrs out of it. Probably annoying you long before that. With low to mid end phones even shorter than that. I don't use an iPhone. But with Android, forced obsolescence due to lack of OS updates or Applications incompatible is a really pita in our house with similar android phones.

That html5test is more about open standards and proprietary strategies than security.

Your view is a bit skewed. Firstly, iOS 5 to 9 is only 4 updates. The final update crippled the device, so only really 3 decent updates.

Lucky to get 2 years out of an Android flagship is also completely false. I know people happily using the HTC M7 from 4 years ago. It might not be on the latest version of Android, but still runs well. One of my workmates is using a Note 3 from almost 4 years ago, and is still really happy with it even though I tell him on a regular basis to upgrade.

The thing is that Android has improved and evolved at a much faster rate than iOS, both from a hardware and software point of view. iOS has been refined for years and only has small iterations. Android is only now getting to that point.

beauf

Grendels wrote: »

Are there any particular Android companies or phone series that offer good upgradability of the OS?

About 6 years ago I had an Android phone that I could upgrade the OS perhaps twice only. I'm hoping things have changed since then, so I can get something with more upgrade longevity, rather than having to buy a new phone every year....

Its seems we are imaging problems with updates. You'll be fine with Android phone you'll never have to update it. But don't get an iPhone they never update them well only for 4 or 5yrs. But it doesn't count because its an iPhone :rolleyes:

https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/android-distribution-news/

beauf

Grendels wrote: »

Are there any particular Android companies or phone series that offer good upgradability of the OS? ...

Generally the most expensive high profile phones get the updates and are useful for the longest. For Android I'd be looking to maximize the RAM and Storage.

http://www.androidauthority.com/ram-overkill-poll-754927/

god's toy

hmmm... it's not apples to apples here, ask blame Qualcomm...

In case it's not been said: Not too long ago, chip manufacturer Qualcomm dealt android-OS a blow when they refused to give driver compatibility updates to any of their 32bit CPU's, that's the snapdragon 801 and anything before it...
That means a load of phones were unable to updated in android 64bit os even if the phone's manufacturer wanted to update to newer versions of the OS..