Motorola will NOT provide monthly security patches for the Z. Does that matter?

[Clocks]

How many of those people say, "what should I get?" And when you tell them, Nexus 5X! or OnePlus 3! And then then they buy a Galaxy S5 or iPhone SE in 2016 because it's free on contract?

All of them

 

[Bankz111]

I've confirmed that the Moto Z WILL receive security updates.

Here's the official line, as I suspected:

Moto Z and Moto Z Force will be supported with patches from Android Security Bulletins. They will receive an update shortly after launch with additional patches.

This solves the issue then. Its funny how much unjust flake some sites desperately want to give moto.

Anyway, reviews have being pretty stellar thus far, with some even basically drooling bout the design and the moto mods implementation on the Z's..
An instant buy for me (with all the interesting mods). Tired of all the samey phones out there. Finally a breath of fresh air. Might check out the ip7+ though, even if it'll look like a potatoe

 

[Ry]

Confirmed: The Moto Z *will* receive security patches http://www.androidcentral.com/confirmed-moto-z-will-receive-security-patches

Posted via the Android Central App on the Moto X Pure Edition

 

[D13H4RD2L1V3]

So, Phil just posted that the Moto Z will indeed receive security patches.

However, given their recent track record, I would certainly tone down my expectations to having maybe a couple of patches launched every now and then, rather than having one launched every month shortly after Google releases them.

 

[Aquila]

Thank you @Phil good clarification

 

[Clocks]

The phone will receive the "monthly security patches", not "security patches, monthly". Not sure why that was ever really in doubt even though one website had said so. They have released security patches for their existing flagships, just not monthly.

I really don't get why people get worked up about whether they receive patches for theoretical exploits that have never been used in the wild every 4 weeks or a couple times a year. Unless you spend your days side loading shadey apps and browsing creepy websites on a rooted phone.

 

[Golfdriver97]

How many of those people say, "what should I get?" And when you tell them, Nexus 5X! or OnePlus 3! And then then they buy a Galaxy S5 or iPhone SE in 2016 because it's free on contract?

I have had 2 guys in the shop buy a Nexus 5x from my suggestion. However, in situations like this, one of my questions is 'Are you going to get a device through your carrier?'. If the answer is yes, it does help in eliminating options that I would not bother to suggest.

 

[D13H4RD2L1V3]

The phone will receive the "monthly security patches", not "security patches, monthly". Not sure why that was ever really in doubt even though one website had said so. They have released security patches for their existing flagships, just not monthly.

I really don't get why people get worked up about whether they receive patches for theoretical exploits that have never been used in the wild every 4 weeks or a couple times a year. Unless you spend your days side loading shadey apps and browsing creepy websites on a rooted phone.

Well, if I were to spend $600+ on a phone having one that receives updates on a more frequent basis would be pretty appealing to me.

Then again, I'm not your typical layman.

Posted via the Android Central App

 

[Clocks]

Well, if I were to spend $600+ on a phone having one that receives updates on a more frequent basis would be pretty appealing to me.

Then again, I'm not your typical layman.

Posted via the Android Central App

It's appealing to me too, but not pitchfork-worthy.

I'm also curious what % of the pitch fork crowd is using either a nexus or one of the few Samsung phones that recently started to receive updates?

"Holy crap I'd never buy a moto Z without updates" says Joe Blow Hypocrisy on their oneplus, Sony, HTC, LG, or virtually any Samsung phone...

 

[Aquila]

I have had 2 guys in the shop buy a Nexus 5x from my suggestion. However, in situations like this, one of my questions is 'Are you going to get a device through your carrier?'. If the answer is yes, it does help in eliminating options that I would not bother to suggest.

Guess you ask better questions. I just tell them to get away from Sprint and to buy the best phones.

 

[Ry]

Moto Z review: Lenovo brings a huge price increase, lame modular system | Ars Technica

Major updates now take several months instead of several weeks, and a Motorola rep told us the company won't be providing security updates for the Moto Z.

Original quote says Motorola told Ron no security updates.

Motorola confirms that it will not commit to monthly security patches | Ars Technica

Motorola says it is "more efficient" to bundle security updates into fewer releases.

 

[Aquila]

Moto Z review: Lenovo brings a huge price increase, lame modular system | Ars Technica



Original quote says Motorola told Ron no security updates.

Motorola confirms that it will not commit to monthly security patches | Ars Technica

Ars sucks at reporting on this.

Moto's statement makes sense but they've also got to realize that Samsung, BlackBerry and Nexus are pushing updates with or without Moto. Yes, fewer with more is more efficient. It's also (theoretically) less secure and it's frustrating for people who are going to expect monthly updates on the day they release. How many of those people are there? At least 2. Probably not much more than that though.

 

[YAYTech]

It just seems like Motorola could so easily claim near-Nexus fame and loyal following if they'd just commit to something like 18-24 months of monthly security and OS updates. Since they keep Android so near to stock, it seems like at least the security updates shouldn't be that big of a deal. Not doing so didn't keep me from ordering the phone, but if they were doing that, I'd have been all over it without nearly as much hesitation.

 

[Ry]

It just seems like Motorola could so easily claim near-Nexus fame and loyal following if they'd just commit to something like 18-24 months of monthly security and OS updates. Since they keep Android so near to stock, it seems like at least the security updates shouldn't be that big of a deal. Not doing so didn't keep me from ordering the phone, but if they were doing that, I'd have been all over it without nearly as much hesitation.

They had near-Nexus fame with the first Moto X. That doesn't equal sales though.

Posted via the Android Central App on the Moto X Pure Edition

 

[Aquila]

They had near-Nexus fame with the first Moto X. That doesn't equal sales though.

Posted via the Android Central App on the Moto X Pure Edition

No, it definitely does not. The majority of users don't even know Android has monthly security updates. Those that do know, probably found out because they were pissed about getting so many updates. The tiny minority who both know and want them.... well, they make a Nexus for that....

 

[sharkita]

They had near-Nexus fame with the first Moto X. That doesn't equal sales though.

Posted via the Android Central App on the Moto X Pure Edition

That is so true. It's a shame the first Moto X didn't sell better than it did. Everyone in my circle of friends and co-workers had nothing but praise for mine but it wasn't enough to pry them away from their iPhones or Galaxies.

 

[Citizen Coyote]

Ars sucks at reporting on this.

Moto's statement makes sense but they've also got to realize that Samsung, BlackBerry and Nexus are pushing updates with or without Moto. Yes, fewer with more is more efficient. It's also (theoretically) less secure and it's frustrating for people who are going to expect monthly updates on the day they release. How many of those people are there? At least 2. Probably not much more than that though.

More than two, if you go by the comments on the article. That said, Ars readers tend to be far more focused on security than the average tech enthusiast. It's not wrong, it's just a different focus.

 

[Aquila]

More than two, if you go by the comments on the article. That said, Ars readers tend to be far more focused on security than the average tech enthusiast. It's not wrong, it's just a different focus.

Ok, cool. I thought me and Jerry were the only ones that cared about it enough to base phone purchase decisions on it.

 

[YAYTech]

They had near-Nexus fame with the first Moto X. That doesn't equal sales though.

Posted via the Android Central App on the Moto X Pure Edition

Not in the short term, but reputations aren't usually built on one product. And just as Moto started to be known a little more widely for being near vanilla and getting fast updates, they broke promises and lost all trust on the updates front. I'd be a loyal Moto buyer if they'd stuck with it. As it is, I did order a Z, but because of specs & price. I would've just as easily ordered another brand.

 

[Ry]

Not in the short term, but reputations aren't usually built on one product. And just as Moto started to be known a little more widely for being near vanilla and getting fast updates, they broke promises and lost all trust on the updates front. I'd be a loyal Moto buyer if they'd stuck with it. As it is, I did order a Z, but because of specs & price. I would've just as easily ordered another brand.

Near vanilla doesn't matter to general consumers though.