What Android manufacturers behave ethically and treat people fairly?

[Drew Neilson]

I am coming from a Windows phone. I am leaving Windows on phones behind because I don't want to put up with the app gap any more. I haven't ruled out getting an iPhone instead of an Android. After much consideration, I made a list of all of the things that are important to me, and ordered them loosely by importance, in descending order. I'm not going to list them all here, in the interest of brevity. Instead, I'm just going to say the most important one: the speed with which manufacturers provide security updates. Please note that I said "security updates", not feature updates. A manufacturer must provide security updates quickly, and preferably for all of its devices, not just the flagships, to be included on my list. What manufacturers fulfill those requirements? How long will manufacturers create security updates for phones post-sale?

 

[Matty]

Re: What Android manufacturers provide security updates quickly?

Firstly Welcome to AndroidCentral @Drew Neilson great to have you here. There are many previous Windows owners here

There are two main OEMs that have been consistent with their security updates. The first being Google. If you purchase a Pixel or Pixel XL you will get monthly security patches for 3 years (Since phone launch) I think security updates stop in 2019.

The second OEM would be Blackberry. They, like Google. Provide monthly security patches for all their devices. The updates are also the '5th of month' patches so you getting the full patch. Devices that may interest you are the DTEK60 & KEYᵒⁿᵉ

A runner up would be Samsung. While their updates are not as quick and don't cover all their devices, they do a fairly good job at getting updates out. Sometimes only the '1st of month' patch.

Hope this helps a little.

 

[Drew Neilson]

Re: What Android manufacturers provide security updates quickly?

That's disappointing, because while I had gone so far as to add a Pixel XL to my shopping cart, what prevented me from finalizing the purchase was learning that Google only promises feature updates for two years after the device's first availability on the Google Store, and security updates for three years, or 18 months after the last sale of the phone from the Google store, whichever happens last. I feel that device manufacturers should provide feature updates to devices for as long as the device is capable of handling the updates, and then when the device is no longer capable of handling software updates, then the manufacturer should notify the customer that software updates are no longer coming due to the device's age. Security updates should continue coming for a long, long time.
Why do I say this? Because a lot of people hold on to devices for more than two or three years. Me personally, I am the kind of person that buys something, and uses it for as long as possible until it is absolutely dead. My laptop is about eight years old, and I upgraded it to Windows 10 sometime last year, and then to the Creator's Update when that came out, and only now, on the Creator's Update, has my computer slowed down enough that I am looking at new devices to replace it with. The Creator's Update probably has some new background processes and new functionality that my old computer is ill-equipped to handle. My point is that I've held onto this laptop for as long as it has been able to serve me, and I am only looking into replacing it now that it is too slow to serve me satisfactorily. I don't like the idea of a device manufacturer setting an arbitrary timeline, saying 'we're only going to push software updates for two years' even if devices more than two years old are powerful enough to handle the updates. To me, that is wasteful, and it bothers the environmentalist in me too, because Android users who know that their devices are no longer receiving software updates and who want to continue to receive software updates will buy new devices even though they shouldn't have to, and then their old devices, which may still technically be capable of handling the latest version of Android, but aren't running it because their manufacturer never pushed it to them, are one step closer to being in a landfill, all because their manufacturer is more interested in money than in doing the right thing. Other Android users who don't care that their devices are no longer receiving software updates, or who aren't aware that their devices are no longer receiving software updates, will continue using their devices, even after they've stopped receiving security updates, which leaves them vulnerable.
How can manufacturers that behave this way sleep at night, knowing that they are harming the environment and harming consumers' security, all because they are more interested in selling new devices than in keeping their existing ones up-to-date for as long as possible?

 

[unclefunbuckets]

Re: What Android manufacturers provide security updates quickly?

I agree completely!

 

[Drew Neilson]

Re: What Android manufacturers provide security updates quickly?

And one thing I forgot to mention: it also bothers me that some manufacturers only push security updates to flagship devices. That is a problem, because it means that wealthy people who can afford flagship devices get security updates, while poorer people who cannot afford flagship devices don't get security updates. That is class-based favoritism, and it is irresponsible, and unethical, because everyone deserves security updates, regardless of their financial class.

 

[Drew Neilson]

Re: What Android manufacturers provide security updates quickly?

Bottom line: I want to support device manufacturers that treat people fairly, and would very much appreciate any recommendations for manufacturers that meet the following:
1. provide security updates for a long time
2. provide software updates for as long as each device can handle those upgrades and new features, instead of setting an arbitrary cutoff date.
3. Provide software updates--especially security updates--for ALL devices, not just flagship devices.
4. Customer support and technical service representatives have as much technical training as I would like. When I call, I want to speak with people who know more than I do, instead of just being read the manual. Also, it is important that they not speak broken English, because it can be hard to understand people who speak broken English, and when a technical support representative is giving me specific instructions for how to do something, it is important that there be no misunderstandings.

Honestly, these things are pushing me towards buying an iPhone, even though there are some things that I don't like about Apple. Apple is known for pushing updates for a long time, with no arbitrary cut-off dates as far as I know, and have been ranked by Consumer Reports as having the best customer service of any manufacturer (I'll provide a link to the exact article later.)

I know that there are things not to like about Apple.
1. iOS is inflexible: users can't customize it to the extent that they can customize Android
2. the Android ecosystem has variety, such that if one company's Android devices don't meet a given user's needs, another company's Android devices might.
3. When it comes to control, Apple sometimes acts like an imperial dictator, whereas Android allows more choice.

With all of that said, I still have to consider buying an iPhone, because of how much better Apple appears to treat its customers: see #1-4, above.

 

[Drew Neilson]

Re: What Android manufacturers provide security updates quickly?

Bottom line: I want to support device manufacturers that treat people fairly, and would very much appreciate any recommendations for manufacturers that meet the following:
1. provide security updates for a long time
2. provide software updates for as long as each device can handle those upgrades and new features, instead of setting an arbitrary cutoff date.
3. Provide software updates--especially security updates--for ALL devices, not just flagship devices.
4. Customer support and technical service representatives have as much technical training as I would like. When I call, I want to speak with people who know more than I do, instead of just being read the manual. Also, it is important that they not speak broken English, because it can be hard to understand people who speak broken English, and when a technical support representative is giving me specific instructions for how to do something, it is important that there be no misunderstandings.

Honestly, these things are pushing me towards buying an iPhone, even though there are some things that I don't like about Apple. Apple is known for pushing updates for a long time, with no arbitrary cut-off dates as far as I know, and have been ranked by Consumer Reports as having the best customer service of any manufacturer (I'll provide a link to the exact article later.)

I know that there are things not to like about Apple.
1. iOS is inflexible: users can't customize it to the extent that they can customize Android
2. the Android ecosystem has variety, such that if one company's Android devices don't meet a given user's needs, another company's Android devices might.
3. When it comes to control, Apple sometimes acts like an imperial dictator, whereas Android allows more choice.

With all of that said, I still have to consider buying an iPhone, because of how much better Apple appears to treat its customers: see #1-4, above.

 

[jjinal]

OMG dude!!! Just pick the phone you like best right now and buy it!! You're not marrying it.

 

[Ry]

Google and BlackBerry. Done.

 

[Ry]

Re: What Android manufacturers provide security updates quickly?

That's disappointing, because while I had gone so far as to add a Pixel XL to my shopping cart, what prevented me from finalizing the purchase was learning that Google only promises feature updates for two years after the device's first availability on the Google Store, and security updates for three years, or 18 months after the last sale of the phone from the Google store, whichever happens last. I feel that device manufacturers should provide feature updates to devices for as long as the device is capable of handling the updates, and then when the device is no longer capable of handling software updates, then the manufacturer should notify the customer that software updates are no longer coming due to the device's age. Security updates should continue coming for a long, long time.
Why do I say this? Because a lot of people hold on to devices for more than two or three years. Me personally, I am the kind of person that buys something, and uses it for as long as possible until it is absolutely dead. My laptop is about eight years old, and I upgraded it to Windows 10 sometime last year, and then to the Creator's Update when that came out, and only now, on the Creator's Update, has my computer slowed down enough that I am looking at new devices to replace it with. The Creator's Update probably has some new background processes and new functionality that my old computer is ill-equipped to handle. My point is that I've held onto this laptop for as long as it has been able to serve me, and I am only looking into replacing it now that it is too slow to serve me satisfactorily. I don't like the idea of a device manufacturer setting an arbitrary timeline, saying 'we're only going to push software updates for two years' even if devices more than two years old are powerful enough to handle the updates. To me, that is wasteful, and it bothers the environmentalist in me too, because Android users who know that their devices are no longer receiving software updates and who want to continue to receive software updates will buy new devices even though they shouldn't have to, and then their old devices, which may still technically be capable of handling the latest version of Android, but aren't running it because their manufacturer never pushed it to them, are one step closer to being in a landfill, all because their manufacturer is more interested in money than in doing the right thing. Other Android users who don't care that their devices are no longer receiving software updates, or who aren't aware that their devices are no longer receiving software updates, will continue using their devices, even after they've stopped receiving security updates, which leaves them vulnerable.
How can manufacturers that behave this way sleep at night, knowing that they are harming the environment and harming consumers' security, all because they are more interested in selling new devices than in keeping their existing ones up-to-date for as long as possible?

https://support.google.com/nexus/answer/4457705?hl=en#pixel_phones

 

[Rukbat]

Re: What Android manufacturers provide security updates quickly?

How can manufacturers that behave this way sleep at night, knowing that they are harming the environment and harming consumers' security, all because they are more interested in selling new devices than in keeping their existing ones up-to-date for as long as possible?

1. Because sending you an update is a tremendous cost (writing one for your model phone) and 2. because selling you a new phone is a profit-making move. If they kept supporting old devices, no one would buy new devices, so their shareholders would suffer.

You have to realize that 1. it costs a lot of money to add just one little change to dozens of models, and 2, some of the older phones can't support the new changes.
As for maintaining a flagship device longer (they don't maintain them forever - my Note 3 hasn't had an update since 5.0.1), they make a lot more profit on flagship devices, so they can afford to maintain software for them for a little longer.

With all of that said, I still have to consider buying an iPhone, because of how much better Apple appears to treat its customers

Not really, it's just that Apple controls all the hardware, so they can keep it compatible for a few versions. But an iPhone 3 is still an iPhone 3, regardless of what version of iOS it's running.

 

[jjinal]

The answer to all the OP's questions is capitalism. Without it we wouldn't have all of these awesome devices to talk about. How many flagships come out of Cuba every year??

 

[smvim]

Owning any smartphone is a matter of making compromises with yourself as none of the companies you've brought up are ethically and morally focused. Be it Microsoft, or Apple, or Google, or Samsung, or whichever the primary focus of a corporation is to accumulate wealth and pay off investors. None of them are social service oriented, and not a single one is an advocate for consumer-based public policy changes. Even worse are corporations like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon the carriers and ISPs we have to rely upon to get any online connectivity. So owning any phone involves putting aside your moral convictions. Stop aggravating yourself over finding a phone made by a manufacturer that's actually good for future generations, there isn't one. Accept the fact that we all have to make concessions about owning and using a smartphone, and just pick what suits your needs best. If updates and upgrades are your priority, you'll probably be better off with an iPhone. Arguments over whether Apple is or isn't ethically better are just rationalizations based on opinions.

 

[jjinal]

Owning any smartphone is a matter of making compromises with yourself as none of the companies you've brought up are ethically and morally focused. Be it Microsoft, or Apple, or Google, or Samsung, or whichever the primary focus of a corporation is to accumulate wealth and pay off investors. None of them are social service oriented, and not a single one is an advocate for consumer-based public policy changes. Even worse are corporations like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon the carriers and ISPs we have to rely upon to get any online connectivity. So owning any phone involves putting aside your moral convictions. Stop aggravating yourself over finding a phone made by a manufacturer that's actually good for future generations, there isn't one. Accept the fact that we all have to make concessions about owning and using a smartphone, and just pick what suits your needs best. If updates and upgrades are your priority, you'll probably be better off with an iPhone. Arguments over whether Apple is or isn't ethically better are just rationalizations based on opinions.

The No Spin Zone.