3 ms·

Samsung announced 5 years of Android updates months ago. Before that, it was 4 years of updates.

by wvenable 5y ago

ChuckNorris89 5y ago
Is it 5 years of Android updates or 5 years of security updates?
- bobviolier 5y ago
  Security updates, I am afraid. At least that's what the launch video said.
  - ChemSpider 5y ago
    Security updates (only) is fine. Except a few geeks, nobody I know cares what Android version she has.
    - Leherenn 5y ago
      Especially since lots of components are updated outside Android updates. The browser and many other things will keep on being updated independently.
- wvenable 5y ago
  For both Google and Samsung, security updates. Google says "Feature drops for at least three years from when the device first became available on the Google Store in the US." on the shop page footnotes. Samsung says you get 3 major Android updates on your devices. Therefore, Samsung is a better deal for updates assuming Google doesn't release a new major Android version every year.
  - kadoban 5y ago
    Does Samsung still take an eternity to do the actual updates once they're available from Goog?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - wvenable 5y ago
      A couple of months for sure.
theshrike79 5y ago
Unless it's 5 years of full on-time Android version updates it doesn't count. "We patched a few zero days" should be the norm, not something you mightily announce as something grand and Brave.
DCKing 5y ago
Unless you have more recent info (please correct me in that case), that's not quite correct. Last I heard was that Samsung's promise has been 4 years of updates [1]. I recognize Samsung as being well clear of the rest of the pack of Android vendors. Other Android vendors are outright negligent, whereas Samsung seems to generally try to fight their bad incentives and come up with some decency. Where I think Samsung falls short is execution. Samsung is fundamentally a hardware company and their software has always been mediocre in my view, even to this day. In terms of security updates they promise less than Google, they promise fewer and slower updates than Google (quarterly software updates for some devices / late in the lifecycle still makes older devices an afterthought!), and I trust their promise to execute on their promise less than Google. Finally, Samsung devices don't have nearly the same support for third party privacy friendly OSes than Pixel devices do - you're stuck with Samsung's (warning: personal opinion) rather tasteless take on what Android should be, and have no real other options. [1]: https://news.samsung.com/global/samsung-takes-galaxy-security-to-the-next-level-by-extending-updates https://news.samsung.com/global/samsung-takes-galaxy-securit...
- wvenable 5y ago
  > Where I think Samsung falls short is execution. Samsung is fundamentally a hardware company and their software has always been mediocre in my view, even to this day. I disagree. I really like Samsung's take on Android and appreciate features like Dex. With some first-party software from the company, they also make Android extremely customizable. The long tail of Android features that exist only on Samsung devices would probably surprise you. OneUI is a pretty clean take on Android styling. > In terms of security updates they promise less than Google, they promise fewer and slower updates than Google I'm getting monthly updates on my somewhat older devices. Not just security updates but full on Samsung software updates. I just got a bunch of new features on tablet this week including quicker multi-tasking, better window docking, etc.
  - DCKing 5y ago
    > The long tail of Android features that exist only on Samsung devices would probably surprise you. We have different tastes in phones, which is okay. I wouldn't really normally respond to this, but I think this quote highlights _why_ our tastes differ. "Having more features" is not a selling point to me, it's probably the opposite. I want a simple OS with a strong set of core features, with a small selection of apps relevant to me. Smartphones have been reasonably mature products for a lot of years at this point, I know what I want from them. That's why Samsung is quite unappealing to me despite their best efforts - I have owned and used multiple Samsung devices in the past. They're trying to give you everything and the kitchen sink, wow you with a bunch of features. Don't bother me with that stuff, I just want something more basic - software wise, at least.

Samsung announced 5 years of Android updates months ago. Before that, it was 4 years of updates.

ChuckNorris89 5y ago

Is it 5 years of Android updates or 5 years of security updates?

bobviolier 5y ago
Security updates, I am afraid. At least that's what the launch video said.
- ChemSpider 5y ago
  Security updates (only) is fine. Except a few geeks, nobody I know cares what Android version she has.
  - Leherenn 5y ago
    Especially since lots of components are updated outside Android updates. The browser and many other things will keep on being updated independently.
wvenable 5y ago
For both Google and Samsung, security updates. Google says "Feature drops for at least three years from when the device first became available on the Google Store in the US." on the shop page footnotes. Samsung says you get 3 major Android updates on your devices. Therefore, Samsung is a better deal for updates assuming Google doesn't release a new major Android version every year.
- kadoban 5y ago
  Does Samsung still take an eternity to do the actual updates once they're available from Goog?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - wvenable 5y ago
    A couple of months for sure.

theshrike79 5y ago

Unless it's 5 years of full on-time Android version updates it doesn't count. "We patched a few zero days" should be the norm, not something you mightily announce as something grand and Brave.

DCKing 5y ago

Unless you have more recent info (please correct me in that case), that's not quite correct. Last I heard was that Samsung's promise has been 4 years of updates [1]. I recognize Samsung as being well clear of the rest of the pack of Android vendors. Other Android vendors are outright negligent, whereas Samsung seems to generally try to fight their bad incentives and come up with some decency. Where I think Samsung falls short is execution. Samsung is fundamentally a hardware company and their software has always been mediocre in my view, even to this day. In terms of security updates they promise less than Google, they promise fewer and slower updates than Google (quarterly software updates for some devices / late in the lifecycle still makes older devices an afterthought!), and I trust their promise to execute on their promise less than Google. Finally, Samsung devices don't have nearly the same support for third party privacy friendly OSes than Pixel devices do - you're stuck with Samsung's (warning: personal opinion) rather tasteless take on what Android should be, and have no real other options. [1]: https://news.samsung.com/global/samsung-takes-galaxy-security-to-the-next-level-by-extending-updates https://news.samsung.com/global/samsung-takes-galaxy-securit...

wvenable 5y ago
> Where I think Samsung falls short is execution. Samsung is fundamentally a hardware company and their software has always been mediocre in my view, even to this day. I disagree. I really like Samsung's take on Android and appreciate features like Dex. With some first-party software from the company, they also make Android extremely customizable. The long tail of Android features that exist only on Samsung devices would probably surprise you. OneUI is a pretty clean take on Android styling. > In terms of security updates they promise less than Google, they promise fewer and slower updates than Google I'm getting monthly updates on my somewhat older devices. Not just security updates but full on Samsung software updates. I just got a bunch of new features on tablet this week including quicker multi-tasking, better window docking, etc.
- DCKing 5y ago
  > The long tail of Android features that exist only on Samsung devices would probably surprise you. We have different tastes in phones, which is okay. I wouldn't really normally respond to this, but I think this quote highlights _why_ our tastes differ. "Having more features" is not a selling point to me, it's probably the opposite. I want a simple OS with a strong set of core features, with a small selection of apps relevant to me. Smartphones have been reasonably mature products for a lot of years at this point, I know what I want from them. That's why Samsung is quite unappealing to me despite their best efforts - I have owned and used multiple Samsung devices in the past. They're trying to give you everything and the kitchen sink, wow you with a bunch of features. Don't bother me with that stuff, I just want something more basic - software wise, at least.