Phones are usable after many years - as phones, but 1/2 year is enough to make SmartPhone old, not having new functions and better hw as new one. No update can change that. Also new software functions are part of reason why to buy new device - they are not made for free. But beware, new trend is that flagship may not be best even at the time of release - like sony with its non-premium and premium flagship, then iphone8 +iphoneX, or samsung with its coming s9+ being better than s9. No update can change that.
As phones are getting more expensive, they should be supported even longer. Also, as long as the HW is good, it should be updated.
For instance, the 230$ Tab E, launched with Lollipop and a SD410 got Marshmallow, Noufat and Oreo is in the works. This is really exemplary support. Tablet is cheap and kinda old, yet gets the Pixel 2 treatment. So it is fair to expect the same treatment for similarly priced devices with similar specifications, and longer for devices more expensive by a multiplier factor. Your Tab A has a similar price and specs, so update it too! North American J3 2016 also (Tab E has 64 bit SoC but OS is in 32 bit mode). Then the A 2o16 phones would get 3 or 4 years because they are much more expensive than Jx. And the S devices would get 4 years with 5 years worth of SW security updates. And this model should be applied uniformly.
Expecting more than two years of update at the current form of Android ecosystem is too much an expectation because it just impedes new software development for other phones by the manufacturer. Nonetheless, I do expect two major OS updates as the user buys the phone maybe some six months after the initial release (and noting the many phones are not released with the most recent Android versions).
I buy a phone every 2 years
You already get 2 Years of OS updates on all major brands. I do think it should be 3 Years though.
I bought the OnePlus 5 because of the superior hardware at the time. With 8GB of RAM, I expect that the phone will be able to handle OS upgrades for many years, unfortunately I have to rely on the manufacturer... who a few months later announced that they weren't going to put Project Treble on it... The phone will become software outdated before hardware outdated and my only option will be too buy a new phone. I guess that's a good strategy on their end to push their customers to buy their phones more frequently. Too bad my next phone won't be a OnePlus...
We all wants it 4 years or more but let's be realistic, most of us upgrade our phones and some people trade them in so it's a little too much to want them to spend resources on something that maybe most people have moved on from. Give and take, 3 years is nice.
To be honest, as long as the hardware is good enough for the software I think it's ok for the OS to be updated.
Till the next big version change. And then again at next big version change. The other option actually forces people to buy a new phone after 2 years, but then again, that's best for the company that survives because of us users. Who have absolutely nothing to say about evolution.
Contract length has absolutely nothing to do with it. That is merely how long it will take to pay off the cost if the device. After that you can revert to a SIM only deal. The fact that many people choose to replace their existing phone at that time and line the pockets of the carriers rather than save money is crazy.
With the price of high end phones it is reasonable to expect long term support with at least ALL security updates, and 3-4 years of major OS upgrades.
This poll does not take into account the extra crap and delay caused by carriers.
I think increasing phone expense is like an environmental regulator. You don't end up buying phones earlier than expected, making you squeeze more out of it for a longer time. This ensures that there is less electronic waste generated. I think, we as customers should try to keep our phones for at least 3 years and more. But truth be told, manufacturers must first take responsibility to increase longetivity of their hardware by keeping phones up to date for at least 4 years. Okay, 2 years of OS updates, and 4 years of security updates. This should be made mandatory by the Governments across the world to reduce discarding electronics at a faster pace. I would be happy if manufacturers promise me a year of additional OS updates for a little extra fee.
Also, I believe phone manufacturers must collaborate & define some base architectural standards for smartphone hardware just like PCs. The reason is phones nowadays are designed from scratch every time, are rushed to production at breakneck speeds, and are always half baked kind of. Either the features are malfunctioning, or software is not optimised. This never gives a customer a satisfied experience, pick any manufacturer, all have their share of software malfunction problems. Sometimes even hardware malfunction problems. I thus believe, each manufacturer must follow a current Nokia approach, or former Motorola-Google, or even Apple approach: Launch just 5 phones at different price points and push new releases only once a year. This way, product excitements are also high, so customers will still buy phones anyways. Launching phones every 6 months, like Xiaomi, will only benefit the company in the short run, but seriously, I feel no excitement whatsoever now for any of Xiaomi's releases. Same story for Lenovo. Lenovo tried to disturb Motorola's tried and successful Google-formulated ideology of three phones - Moto G, Moto X and Moto E, which was so successful with Google. They instead of learning from Moto, tried to change them to Lenovo's style of too many phones, and thus Moto went down along with Lenovo. Moto+Lenovo combined is now not in the top list of manufacturers, and I blame this problem of releasing too many phones. Same for Asus too, they release too many phones to even understand anything, justifies why Asus sales are down lately, too many Zenphones. I guess the Zen ideology is simplicity. I must say, learn from Apple, Nokia. There secret is quality and slow, yearly upgrades.
well OS updates i think 2 is fine lets say from android 6 to 8
but security and firmware should be 4.
i vote for 2 since you asked about OS not any updates in general
good example is Xiomi even with 4.4 they still give you latest features
4 years. Just like what Apple is doing.
Ps: my iphone 5s is on iOS 11.2.5 and not THAT slow (it is surely slower, but really, it is still damn usable).
I bought this phone 3 years ago, with iOS8 installed.
We have to admit, Apple is really good in delivering software, update and support.
Thankfully, 5s didnt get the “cpu throttling”, because i think it has been way slower than Apple expect :v
They should get updates as long as that update doesn't sacrifice the performance of the phone, or if some particular options of the newer OS are so important to the particular user that the user is willing to sacrifice performance for options. Also, the users shouldn't be pressured to update by constantly throwing update notifications at them without the option to turn them off. I own the phone that was introduced in 2014 (Samsung Alpha, Exynos variant), still holding it at 4.4. KitKat and it can still handle pretty much anything and it doesn't lack any relevant options compared to the latest version of Android. What people don't even bother to think when they update their phones is that no matter how new the OS version is, the hardware in that same phone doesn't change, it's the same as the first day of use. Thinking that Google or any OEM will truly even bother to invest any significant resources to test that OS on components three or four years old is pretty naive. Also, newer systems are always tested on (near) latest components before it's release, and the hardware hurdles for minimum bearable performance, average performance and maximum performance are much higher compared to the time when older OS was tested simply because at that time of the past they had less capable hardware. That is the reason why the older OS will almost always work faster than newer OS on older hardware, and the reason why OEM-s want us to update, not to expand smartphones usable life, but to actually shorten it.
Feature updates: not required. I would be happy to still run Marshmallow (currently, the phone has Oreo)
Security patches: 3 years from the last example of a particular model being sold
What do you mean by OS updates ? Security patch, OS version, User Interface (UI) or all of it ? For security patch at least 3 years but 4 years are welcomed, for OS version at least 2 or 3 for high end and high midrange phone and 1 or 2 for low midrange and low end and for UI as long as the OEM exist like what Xiaomi did with their UI update. Most of the people cannot afford a new phone for every year and dont be shock if U find some people still use the same phone for 5 years or more.
3 years is reasonable and enough.
Fearghast, 04 Feb 2018Forever.
If the OS is written in a way, that core can be updated and it won't break anything.... moreRight now the problem isn't the OS, but rather the drivers.
Android Framework is fully upgradable, the Linux kernel is fully upgradable, the drivers the manufacturers give (as binary blobs compile against certain version) aren't upgradable at all.
This is what needs to be addressed. Project Treble is, in a way, solving this (Android Framework may be upgraded freely, but any flaws in the vendor side will forever remain -- unless, against all odds, the vendor does take action).
My GALAXY K ZOOM didn´t receive a single update since it released in June of 2014, I repeat, not a single update !!!!!!
I'm shocked that ppl want to put a limit on updates. As long as you can make an update to support the device, the OEM should update. If it's going to significantly reduce perform, then discontinue.