The key to driving voluntary updates is to separate the platform from the product. There's no reason that Google shouldn't be able to maintain an Android OS tha

The key to driving voluntary updates is to separate the platform from the product. There's no reason that Google shouldn't be able to maintain an Android OS that looks and works just like it did the first day that the user opened the phone. Such a standard is expected in commercial software because businesses won't tolerate expensive disruptions to placate a vendor's vanity. If Google were serious about maintaining a healthy Android ecosystem, they'd make platform upgrades mandatory and transparent. Launcher and interface "upgrades" can and should be optional. As far as I know, Microsoft continues to fret over backward compatibility with software that's probably older than their median employee, because their customers expect nothing less. Moreover, customers demand a consistent experience and have very little tolerance for arbitrary workflow disruption (a point forcibly driven home by the crash and burn of Windows 8, in case it wasn't already obvious enough). RHEL releases are supported for more than 10 years and they function essentially identically the entire time, somehow without leaving users in the breach to contend alone against a decade's worth of crashes and security flaws, and believe it or not, there are specialized and boutique platforms that take this type of thing even more seriously. "Don't break the user's shit" is not only possible, it's the baseline expectation from any profesionally-managed platform. Then we have Google saying "Hey, upgrade your OS and we'll change the whole interface, break a third of your software, and force you to learn this weird new 'no buttons' thing because buttons aren't in this year. No takebacks." When that's all vendors have to offer, it's not a surprise that consumers avoid upgrades like the plague. While Apple is definitely closer to the Google side of the fence here, they've paid a high price for it over the decades, penetrating only those industries where the appearance of eccentric creativity is a larger asset than consistent productivity. Since iOS devices are primarily a status symbol, it appears the combination of getting the hottest thing and feeling compliant with the overlords in Cupertino is sufficient upgrade motive for the ever-dwindling number of iOS users. Google should know their audience of "everyone else" well enough to know that for most people, that dog just don't hunt. Maybe it's time for Microsoft to draw its claws out of Nokia and see what happens if they take another pass at the market.