why does Google only guarantee Pixel updates for 2 years? (vs. 4 years for iPhones)

[anon(10057381)]

Yeah, I'm assuming it is really beyond Google's control as well.... Apple controls the entire iPhone system... from chips and up. And like some of my esteemed fellows here have mentioned, Google is often at the mercy of vendors like Qualcomm... if the manufacturer of your SoC no longer supports a new version, you are pretty much out of luck... no drivers, no kernel, no phone.

Apple, on the other hand, does all that in house, so they are the decision maker in terms of when they will cease supporting older chipsets. And since they only have to support a VERY limited number of those, keeping them on longer puts much less strain on their R&D org.

which is why I'm confused... doesn't Google have control over it's own Nexus phones? if so, why are 2-year-old Nexus 6 phones being abandoned already?

 

[Aquila]

which is why I'm confused... doesn't Google have control over it's own Nexus phones? if so, why are 2-year-old Nexus 6 phones being abandoned already?

They do not; 6 as an example, Moto has the deals with Qualcomm and others and Goole consulted on some design decisions and provides the software and a sales outlet through the google store. The pixel will be the first phone google controls those contracts, but it isn't the same as if they produced some of the components in house.

 

[Aquila]

Moto obviously also isn't Moto anymore.

 

[dpeters11]

They don't say it exactly but with every new OS release, they list the phones and iPads that will get the release.

Sure, but at least in the past it wasn't always more than 2 years. The original iPad at least was 2, mainly because of the lack of RAM.

And even now, you might get the update but not the features. My old iPad 2 got iOS 9 but couldn't do Night Shift as that required a 64 bit iPad.

 

[SactoKingsFan]

There's also the fact that the Pixel series doesn't have a removable battery, it'll be a "dead" phone in more ways than one after the updates are over with.

It can last longer than expected if you take care of the battery. I have a 3+ year old LG G2 that can still get good battery life.

 

[LeoRex]

which is why I'm confused... doesn't Google have control over it's own Nexus phones? if so, why are 2-year-old Nexus 6 phones being abandoned already?

There's only so much Google can control. The main processor is designed, built and (more importantly for this topic) licensed by Qualcomm. If they up and decide that they will no longer support or develop the low level drivers and kernel sources, then Google's hands are tied.

Google wants to advance the platform, and to do that, new software needs to be supported by the hardware, hardware Google does not own.

It's like a new game that requires a new video feature to work. If a video card manufacturer decides to not update an older card's driver to support that, the only viable option is to leave that card behind.

 

[Aquila]

@LeoRex is old. And wise. Too old and wise.

 

[vzwuser76]

Google has promised at least 3 years for security updates for the Pixel. Only time will tell if it will get those for longer than that.

I'd say doubtful, if the Nexus 7 2013 is any indication. While it did get version updates a little beyond 2 years, it's security patches stopped at the 3 year mark. That was IIRC the first device that hit the 3 year mark in terms of security patches (along with the Nexus 5, but I didn't own one so I can't speak on it).

 

[Almeuit]

I'd say doubtful, if the Nexus 7 2013 is any indication. While it did get version updates a little beyond 2 years, it's security patches stopped at the 3 year mark. That was IIRC the first device that hit the 3 year mark in terms of security patches (along with the Nexus 5, but I didn't own one so I can't speak on it).

Did they promise 3 year updates on that? I am not sure so curious if something official or just people assuming.

 

[tdizzel]

I'd say doubtful, if the Nexus 7 2013 is any indication. While it did get version updates a little beyond 2 years, it's security patches stopped at the 3 year mark. That was IIRC the first device that hit the 3 year mark in terms of security patches (along with the Nexus 5, but I didn't own one so I can't speak on it).

Unless the Nexus 7 2013 is a Pixel then it has zero bearing on what will happen with the Pixel. The Pixel is new and totally different in purpose and philosophy from the Nexus.

 

[vzwuser76]

Unless the Nexus 7 2013 is a Pixel then it has zero bearing on what will happen with the Pixel. The Pixel is new and totally different in purpose and philosophy from the Nexus.

OK, but since Google said the Pixels would get major updates for 2 years and security patches for 3 years just like the Nexus phones, it's a pretty safe assumption.

 

[tdizzel]

OK, but since Google said the Pixels would get major updates for 2 years and security patches for 3 years just like the Nexus phones, it's a pretty safe assumption.

Well you know what they say about when you assume

 

[vzwuser76]

Well you know what they say about when you assume

Well they promised 3 years of security updates for the Nexus devices as well, and stopped them at 3 years for the N7. But as you said the Pixels are a whole new thing, so I guess that means we can't take anything Google has said about them at their word until we see it actually happen then.

 

[anon(10057381)]

Well they promised 3 years of security updates for the Nexus devices as well, and stopped them at 3 years for the N7. But as you said the Pixels are a whole new thing, so I guess that means we can't take anything Google has said about them at their word until we see it actually happen then.

Google has played around with a lot of hardware and software that they ended up abandoning after they got bored.

 

[vzwuser76]

Google has played around with a lot of hardware and software that they ended up abandoning after they got bored.

OK, but how many times have they abandoned phones or tablets? Sure they've done that with niche products like Glass or the Nexus Player, but their phones and tablets have always gotten the full 2 years, barring issues with hardware partners. For example, TI dropping out of mobile and leaving the Galaxy Nexus abandoned, even though it most likely wouldn't have gotten KK anyway since it was right on the 2 year mark. But with no updated firmware or drivers, how good would the experience have been? Would lower battery life and performance be worth it just to say you're on the newer version?

Now there have been rumors that Google is looking to follow in Samsung's and Apple's footsteps and engineer their own SOCs, which would eliminate reliance on chip vendors for support. But until that happens, there's nothing much Google can do about it. In fact the only instance I can recall of a Nexus device (or Android device for that matter) officially getting version updates past the 2 year mark is the N7 2013, which IIRC went 2.25-2.5 years after it's launch. I don't know if there was a reason Qualcomm supported the S4Pro for longer, but regardless, that's what most always happened. If anyone should be able to go for longer, it would be Samsung with their Exynos chips. They're designed and built in house, and Samsung is big enough to support them. They really have no excuse for not supporting them for longer, and it might be a draw for customers to their products with the Exynos chips inside. But support doesn't net them any revenue as new device sales do. So business wise it makes more sense to continue their planned obsolescence.

And as others have pointed out, with Google removing most key apps from the OS and updating them independently in the Playstore, they're still quite usable after version updates have ended. Whereas Apple has most of their critical apps as part of the OS. So again as others have said, both are doing the same thing, the only difference is Apple tacks on a newer version number on their OS and looks like they're doing a better job of keeping their devices up to date. How many times have we seen Apple release their new OS for older models but with an asterisk? But when you dig deeper most of the benefits of the newer OS version are nowhere to be found on the older models.

If I was to complain about anything, it's that I think they should continue security patch support for longer than three years. Hell make it four years to match Apple's support. Even if Google did do version updates for longer than 2 years, many of the newer features are hardware dependent, so older devices wouldn't get them anyway, but with security patches they could continue to use the older hardware for longer and still be secure. If they're as committed to security as they claim, that would be putting their money where their mouth is.

 

[Almeuit]

I don't recall, but they instituted the 3 year security patch situation before it but it's 3 year mark.

Insinuating and saying are different.

 

[vzwuser76]

Insinuating and saying are different.

Where did you get insinuated? I said instituted, as in putting it into effect.

 

[gmermel]

Where did you get insinuated? I said instituted, as in putting it into effect.

Momentary dyslexia ?

 

[vzwuser76]

Momentary dyslexia ?

I'd buy that, there are plenty of times I've read something that I was sure I'd understood but then found out I was mistaken on when reading it more thoroughly. Speed reading is fine but sometimes details get lost.

 

[Almeuit]

Where did you get insinuated? I said instituted, as in putting it into effect.

Oops -- read it wrong .