> This is a distinction without a difference. No? For a licensed Android phone there's a clean split between OEM and OS updates, a clear declaration for suppo

> This is a distinction without a difference. No? For a licensed Android phone there's a clean split between OEM and OS updates, a clear declaration for support period and a OS-managed tracking of updates with clear visibility to the customer. I get that there are constant platforms flames about whether this is acceptable or inferior to Apple's offering, yada yada yada. But the point is that none of that is relevant here, because these aren't phones and aren't running a licensed "Android" variant. They're just TVs running vendor-custom firmware that happens to be based on AOSP, and clearly can't be expected to conform to any update regime except whatever the integrator put together. Basically, the story here is saying "I hacked product A" and you're trying to have an argument like "That's because this unrelated product B is bad". It's a non-sequitur.