Hacker News Reader

Comment by nouveaux | Hacker News Reader

Just spitballing here but it's possible that Android's openness is exactly why Google Pixel doesn't have better resources to have long term support. Some bean counters probably determined that Google doesn't make enough money to have teams supporting older Pixels. Samsung is taking a ton of profits from Pixel and the end result is piss poor Android support on Pixels.

Guess what? Samsung doesn't care about long term Android support. They're in it to sell phones. It's better for Samsung if Android's ecosystem continues to drop older phones.

At some point, Apple realized that long term support is a competitive advantage they can leverage. Due to their enormous profits, they can increase their support costs. With their closed ecosystem, Samsung can't come in and pull their shenanigans to undercut Apple.

IMO, Android’s openness is exactly why the Android experience on older phones suck.

View on HN

I'm not sure openness is the sole factor reducing support duration.

Windows 8 was released in 2012 and was supported untim 2023 and Microsoft for sure hat _a lot_ more platforms to support than Google / the Android Team.

I would argue that a closed system is a lot easier to support for a longer time (because one can mandate changes/depreciations). But for a open system, there must be another factor coming into play, may it be money or a simple "don't care".

Samsung has pledged 4 years of OS updates and 5 years of security updates recently.

I’d like to see 7-8 years of security updates, but it’s decent.

https://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_pledges_4_os_updates_5_year...

Imo it's bs in the context where fairphone 5 will have 8y of os updates

Pretty sure Samsung has sold more SKUs than fair phone has sold actual phones. It’s a pretty ridiculous comparison. Have they even been shipping phones for 8y?

and what? Parent comment was saying google does not have resources, I gave an example of a company with much less resources but that can do this

Saying "why can't BigCo support BillionsOfPhones, when fair phone can support AFewPhones" doesn't make sense.

1. We don't know FairPhone can follow through, they're small/young and may not exist in 8y, or may not have money to pay for support. 2. Even if FP succeeds, they accomplished a much easier task than BigCo is expected to.

Nr of phones doesn't matter, nr of models matters. How many models have google launched? 8? Fairphone did 5, not that big difference. And apple how many? >15 generations with huge support. So here we have both a small company with big support, a big company with big support (and even samsung now provides more years of os updates lol) and here we have google, a big corp that "can't" do this bc they are big... suuuuuure

To be fair, Google is also developing most of Android, so they already have a lot higher costs. Tough S*t, I know, but if Google drops android, I'd like to see how much support/progress someone like FairPhone can really provide. Only apple really has a fair comparison. I agree Google just hasn't supported long cycles because they didn't care, not because they can't. But you have to recognize they have a much bigger task. I would also assume that Google + Samsung's support is a lot more comprehensive than FairPhone's

Google obviously has the resources. The bean counters decided that they want profits instead of building up a loyal customer base.

My main point is that if Pixels sold as many phones as Samsung, it is very likely that Pixel would put in the resources to support older phones. Competition within the Android space does not equate to better long term service.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com