Much simpler than that: Apple doesn't allow third parties to make iPhones, while Google allows third parties to make Android phones. Devices don't get updated because manufacturers stop providing updates for them.
Apple is doing a better job with operating system updates. On June 21, Apple released a bunch of iOS updates including iOS 15.7.7 [1] for devices going back to the iPhone 6s which was released September 2015--nearly 8 years ago.
There's no reason why the large Android OEMs couldn't do the same if they wanted to.
And that's with 81% of iPhone bought in the last 4 years running a version of iOS 16 [2] five months ago. When iOS 17 is available to be installed in two months, over 90% the installed base will be running iOS 16.
[1]: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT213811
[2]: https://www.macrumors.com/2023/02/16/ios-16-adoption-stats-f...
Samsung and Google can do 5 years of support because of Exynos/Tensor, and Samsung basically spends the money to support older Qualcomm devices themselves.
https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2020/12/qualcomm-and-...
Wrong, there's a big reason: Qualcomm. Newer Android releases often bump the minimum required version of the Linux kernel. If Qualcomm stops supporting a particular chipset, they won't give you new binary blobs (part of what's known as a "board support package" or BSP) for the new minimum kernel version, so you can't update.
Google managed to negotiate with Qualcomm to get them to support old chipsets for longer, but it still falls far short of what Apple does. And now Google is making their own chips for Pixel phones and are doing 5 years of security updates (though still only 3 for major OS updates, boo).
And really, it just boils down to a shitty planned-obsolescence business decision. Apple knows that they will have enough people to buy (either first-time or upgrade) their newest shiny iPhone come release time every year, even if they continue to support 8-year old phones. Google doesn't have that confidence, so they don't put as much effort into upgrades for older devices. And that's Google, who makes fairly high-end phones; the makers of low-end devices know their users are price-sensitive and won't upgrade phones unless they have to.
So it's really two things: one is that they don't want to, and there's no market or regulatory force that pushes them to. And the other is that they truly are limited in how far they can support upgrades, much more limited than Apple is, since Apple controls the entire hardware and software stack.
Having said all that, do understand that I don't endorse or like the current situation here. My Pixel 4 stopped getting security updates (technically last fall, but Google pushed out a roll-up update a few months ago), and I'm frankly not ready to upgrade. The hardware is fine, the software is snappy, and it does everything I want it to. The Pixel 7a is probably my next best bet, but it is yet again a physically larger phone, and I hate that. But this is the situation, and these are the reasons for it.
As far as I understand price sensitive users will stop using apps that don't support their device instead of upgrading. (Or will try to roll back the update of said apps.) Providing base security updates wouldn't change this logic.
I'm not convinced. Apple controls the iPhone market and can do this, but no Android manufacturer controls the Android market. A brand that deliberately reduces its own devices' lifespan can't trust that its consumers will buy another device from the same brand. I think it's just a matter of not offering support being cheaper than some plan to reduced lifespan leading to new purchases.
This is the biggest reason Google is pushing for there being one version of the Android kernel, across all vendors: to make updates always possible.
Android being open source isn’t the problem.
However with Android, companies sell 100s of millions of devices to consumers that are more concerned about price point than updates. There just doesn't seem to be the incentive for OEMs to care about it, if the majority of consumers refused to buy devices based on old OS versions or ones that didn't get updates, those devices wouldn't get made.
Open source isn't the differentiator, IMO. OEM fuckwittery is. Just as Dell can junk up this $3,000 laptop with shitty drivers and shell extensions that are markedly worse than what Windows offers natively, so could other Windows OEMs.
The major difference here I think is that until the recent era, MS wasn't competing with those OEMs so they had little reason to try to one-up MS and every reason to leverage MS for as much of the update infra as possible. For the last 5-10 years, with the Surface line, Microsoft has been increasingly encroaching on the top OEM user base and some are fighting back by trying to outdo MS (and failing).
But I don't think anyone is putting the right blame here on Android. It's not the OEMs not serving enough software updates, it's that in many parts of the world, a 10 year old device can still connect to the network and the carriers are OK with that. That device, even it it was from Apple, would not be getting updates that late in its lifetime but large swaths of the world aren't so fucking hung up on phones as jewelry that they update every year, or even every two, or even every 5. Those ancient Android phones in Bangladesh, they're working just fine for their users and even Apple wouldn't be serving them any better with software updates.