Google now requires two years of regular security patches for popular Android devices

Google now requires two years of regular security patches for popular Android devices
The Google Pixel 3

Back in May, it was revealed that Google would soon start requiring regular security patches for Android devices in the hope of better protecting the ecosystem. Today, The Verge has obtained a copy of Google’s latest contract which provides all of the details that were previously unknown.

Moving forward, Android manufacturers will need to provide a minimum of four updates during the first year of release, which equates to at least one patch every three months, and an unspecified number during the second year of release. Moreover, by the end of each calendar month, any vulnerability discovered over 90 days ago must be patched. This same rule is valid with newly-released devices, regardless of when they were announced.

This latest agreement centers around smartphones launched after January 31st, 2018. However, not all are subject to the contract. Instead, Google is focusing on popular devices and will only require manufacturers to regularly update smartphones that have been activated by 100,000 users or more. As of July 31, 2018, these patch requirements were applied to 75% of “security mandatory models” but starting January 31, 2019, the rules will cover every one.

On a related note, if manufacturers fail to comply with this latest set of rules, Google reserves the right to stop approving future phones which means the companies in question may no longer be able to release Android-powered smartphones.

These specifics can be found inside Google’s updated licensing agreement for the European Union and, while it’s likely that some small details may be changed, very similar terms are expected in other regions of the world.

source: The Verge

FEATURED VIDEO

53 Comments

1. gamehead unregistered

Google\Android can learn a thing or two from apple/iOS.

3. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

It's quite a different thing to only support your own hardware/software powered by your customer built SOC. VersusnGoogle having to deal with multiple OEMs with multiple hardware and software configurations, all powered by multiple SOCs fromultiple vendors.

17. Leo_MC

Posts: 6092; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

Google creates a SINGLE version of Android release which manufacturers get access to, code their drivers and software into and push it to their users.

19. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

Yes, and then Google has to find a way to get all of them to follow their lead and update their devices. Who does Apple have to convince to do that. Point was it's a lot harder to update and manage an OS that will work with many multiple iterations of hardware and software vs setting it up for a few iterations of one's own hardware/software.

20. Leo_MC

Posts: 6092; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

Nobody is forcing Google to make Android available to everyone...

21. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

And no one's forcing the OEMs to use Android. But the fact is most OEMs would rather take a ready made OS rather than developing their own. So for them to slack off on keeping them updated is really pathetic. It would be understandable if they also had to develop and update their own OS, but all they really have to do is push the update that Google provides them, and they can't even manage to do that. That's on the OEMs. No matter what you think of Android or Google, you can't say with a straight face that the effort required to updates Apple's devices is the same amount of effort to update Android devices. Think if the number of iPhone models Apple put out in the last 5 years, then look at the number of Android models put out in that same 5 years, it's not even close. And while it's ultimately up to the OEMs to update their own devices, to think that Google won't have to work with them to make it happen is at best being unrealistic and at worst being willfully in denial. The core OS will have to be compatible with all the various hardware configurations OEMs use, and that will be up to Google to make that happen.

22. Leo_MC

Posts: 6092; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

I - as a consumer - don't give a crap about Google's or Apple's efforts, I just want a device that works. On the other hand, there are a lot of dumb assess that will find any excuse for their beloved company. As long as Google is giving 3rd party access to Android, me as a consumer I am in my right to criticize anything I find worth criticizing. If Essential could release Pie for its phones when it did, than Samsung could have released Pie, at least for the top line, just as fast. I know that Google is not going to care more about their customer's desires over the billions of $ it makes from the collaboration with the manufacturers, but don't tell me that it's hard to force them (let's use "determine them") to update their versions of Android... manufacturers have access to beta versions, they have 6 months to code their side of the software and, when the final version is released by Google, it takes maybe a day to update the OS (for Android One they would only have to code the drivers in those 6 months, which are about the same as those that Google uses in Pixels) so stop trying to find excuses.

23. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

Yet you question theethods in which they do it, at least on Google's part. You've always been that way. Could say the exact same about you. So if they stop third party access, you wouldn't have the right to criticize them? Um yeah, that was kinday point. Thanks for agreeing. No, let's not use that term because itakes no sense. If you don't like the word force, them "encourage them"ight be what you're looking for. But thanks for listing all the reasons most of the update problems lie with OEMs. As we've seen recently, Google is under a lot of scrutiny because of their business practices. Now that they're forced to change some of them, they came out with this change. (BTW, you and I have argued about if Google should have been forced to give OEMs the Playstore without their bundled apps, and if you'll remember I told you if that happened that they'd start charging for it, which they now are in the EU). I'm notakinn excises for the OEMs, I never was and I even said that in my last post, read the first paragraph again.

24. Leo_MC

Posts: 6092; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

There are some things I didn't understand about what you have written - it might have been an auto correct gone mad (I had plenty of those :)) so check them out - so I will only address what I do understand. I am criticizing the update process of Android (the whole ecosystem of phones); if there were only Google devices, I would have something else to say (maybe I would talk about not supporting 3y old phones, maybe I would understand why they don't and don't be critic at all, we'll never know). The problem lies with OEMs, because Google "allows" them to keep their devices on older versions of Android; if Google would tell them "you have X day(s)/week(s)/month(s) to release the update, or else your phones will not have access to Play Store and Google services will stop working", I assure you that it would take the manufacturers the exact X time to push updates; the update system on Android is just as much Google's fault as it is OEMs. Google has always made so that it would make money - just think how much money G gives to Apple so that G Search stays the default search engine in Safari; now imagine that Samsung, Huawei or Xiaomi don't actually pay G a dime to get Android, but they have its Search by default on each and every device they ship - I don't have to say that the 3 companies ship way more devices than Apple year after year, which means Google is making a s**tload opf money just by being the default search engine; if we go into Chrome data collection setting, we can count another good amount of billions Google is making just by providing "free" Android - plus it charged for the use of patents, which means Android has never been free.

25. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

The reason Google isn't able to support their own devices for as long as Apple is that they us chips desogned and produced by Qualcomm. Apple designs their own, so they can support them as long as they want to. Google is using someone else's chips and can only support them as long as Qualcomm does. The reason they weren't able to in the past is because they were under a lot of scrutiny by regulators (like in the EU). Had they tried something like that, they would've been dinged for anticompetitive practices. Now that that's happened and they changed their agreements in regards to the Play store, they're trying to push OEMs to do better with updates. Yeah, that's the way most anything works. Anything that's offered free, TV, radio, etc use ads to compensate for not charging a fee. But, to the OEMs, it's not costing the same as it would've to develop and maintain their own OS. You make it sound like Google is so horrible for making money, but that's what businesses do. If it's so horrible, what does it say about Apple? Not only do they not give anything away, they charge some of the highest prices in the industry.

26. Leo_MC

Posts: 6092; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

You're just finding excuses... even so. Android is just as old as iOS and, just as Google was able to convince giants like HTC (back then), Samsung or LG to build it's (Nexus and Pixel) phones, it could have convinced QC to design a custom chip. But even as it is today, QC doesn't have to support the chips as long as Google does it; the support means software and Google is the one that is building the software part of Android and the one that builds the drivers. EU has nothing to do with updates, that's just stupid and ignorant. I have never said it's bad to make money - quite the contrary - I'm just calling Google's minion's bulls**t about Android being free: it is not, never was and I think it never will be. As for who charges more money: I (still) have a 5s, which I will either use as a backup or I will sell it for about 10-15% of its original cost (and I will sell it a matter of days); it is updated to the latest OS version, it doesn't have all iOS functionalities but it sure have the security updates and it works decent; can you say the same about its contemporary Android phones? I don't recall seeing any S4 (s5 neither) or even Nexus 5 anymore; let along G3's, or some Motorola Xes. I am sure that the average iPhone user has saved more money than the average Samsung user who bought a S4 the same year the first bought the 5s...

27. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

It may be as old, but Android and Google have never had the pull to force anyone in the same way Apple has. And Apple hasn't been able to force Qualcomm to do anything without litigation, so what makes you think Google would have any better luck? Sure they could try and make their own drivers, but without support for something like an inherent issue in the code, they can't take care of security issues without the chip maker's support, they're dead in the water. Which is probably one of the reasons Apple started making their own. And if Google did try and make their own drivers, it won't be without issue and then you'll have a backlash from OEMs for spotty support. It's just not worth it to them. No, the EU does have influence on the process. Not in keeping Google from issuing them, that's not what I said at all. But Google forcing OEMs to do what they want is absolutely in their purview, which is why they're now going to offer the Playstore without having their apps bundled, except now those same OEMs will have to pay for it. I didn't say it was literally free. But comparing the cost of OEMs developing and maintaining an OS vs what OEMs pay to run Android, it might as well be. Yup, you can definitely save money that way, but you're also using a an older piece of tech that won't support newer features. My brother ran his last 2 phones for 4 years and 5 years respectively. He's currently running a 2013 Moto X and it runs fine, the only thing is the battery life has taken a hit, but then Motorola isn't limiting his phone to increase battery life either. But regardless, security updates don't generally help in performance, they merely safeguard it from malware. But just because they aren't supported doesn't meant they stop working. I've got older devices that still run decently, but that doesn't mean it's something you'd want to use on a daily basis when for a little more I can buy a new device with support and warranty. Sure it wouldn't have the same performance as a top tier device but it wouldn't be any worse than a 5 year old device performance wise.

28. Leo_MC

Posts: 6092; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

QC is not the only chip maker in the world; I'm sure that, if Google wanted to design the chips to work flawlessly with Android (just like AX does with iOS), it would have found one (Intel, TSMC, even Exynos by Samsung or Kirin bu Huawei), pushing QC hand and determining it to collaborate. Google is just as powerful as Apple, maybe even more powerful, because it ownes more than 80% globally and QC cannot afford to be left out. I bet Samsung and Huawei won't pay a dime for Play Store; they might "pay" on paper but they will get back the money somehow, because neither will agree to lose 8-12 billion €/year; with that money Huawei is buying the best Chinese store and shows Google the middle finger; the same goes for Samsung. Dude, Moto X runs Lollipop, which was discontinues 3 years ago; last year threats alone are making that phone security protection to be worse than a Swiss cheese... Sure you can (and should) buy a new device, but that's exactly the point: getting an iPhone means I don't HAVE to buy a new one for longer periods of time (3 years longer, if we are to compare Moto X with 5s), which means 5s - in the long run - is cheaper than Moto X by a factor of at least 2 (it's 50€ vs 100€; it was 4-500€ new vs. 550-600€). So, if we are to only consider the monetary value, the iPhone is still the smarter choice ;).

29. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

If you want to run CDMA in the US, you pretty much have to run Qualcomm chips or pay the royalties for their CDMA licenses. That's why you don't see other chipmakers here, because a sizable portion of the US public runs on carriers that utilize that technology. It's also one of the reasons why Apple is in litigation with Qualcomm, because of their patent dispute. No they're not. Google is big, but not all of their partners are. And if you tell a smaller company that they're going to have to forgo sales so they can force Qualcomm to support their chips for longer, something that would mean less sales for them as well, what's the upside for them? It's good for the consumer, but while Apple offers it, there are caveats to that as well such as missing features from the new updates and worsening performance. So they won't pay for something someone else operates and maintains? You're mad that Google offers something for free in exchange for them paying for something else, but you think they should offer it for free, no strings attached? Why? Would you work for free? With the EU's decision, the source of most of Google's revenue, data for targeted ads goes away. So they have to recoup that money from somewhere. Charging for the Playstore is how that happens, and it's what I predicted would happen if a decision like the EU's came down. I didn't say the Moto X was fully protected, I said it would function, period. It was just an example. Now you were talking about the high resale value of your 5s. While it's currently supported, it's on it's last year of protection. So why would someone pay a decent chunk of change to only be supported for a year, or more likely less, when they could buy a low level or midrange device that would have similar performance and a couple years of support for the same money? Otherwise buying a new one from the start won't be cheap, and after a year or two you not only run into performance issues due to the age of the chip inside, you also have Apple limiting performance to prolong battery life. So you get a year or two of good performance, followed by a few years of worsening performance. Better to go with a midrange device every couple years and have consistently decent performance every year. Sure it won't be as good for the first couple years, but you won't see the same drop off during it's life if you refresh it more often. And you won't have to fork out as much money at any one time either. Then you also get into personal preference. I know this is a crazy thought, but maybe some people don't like iOS. Shocking I know. Some of my family does, some doesn't. So even for all the benefits you outlined, if they're not a fan of the OS, that means they're running something they don't like for that extended period. And I wouldn't tell my pro iOS friends and family that they need to switch to Android, it's their choice, not mine.

30. Leo_MC

Posts: 6092; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

Anything is possible when you are Google. Apple was insignificant when it launched the iPhone and it succeed; it also has smaller sales than Android manufacturers and it succeeds to determine anyone to build things for its iPhones (TSMC doesn't fear that A. is going to build its own chips someday, neither does Samsung with displays or memories, even Google doesn't fears that A. is going to build its own Ad sense). I'm not mad, I don't think Google should do something different (I don't think they should do things the way it does) - I simply don't have an opinion, because I don't know how Google - the company - works; I just want to see that Google and its minions such as yourself (and it's not a derogatory use of the term, trust me) assuming the fact that Android comes with some strings, one of them being the money that exchange hands. You haven't got the slightest clue about EU decision... It hasn't changed a thing: Google is just as free to sell (or not sell) Android, is just as free to fill it with ads (btw, you have got to be insane to use Google's apps without a VPN or ad blockers - for instance!!! just for the fact that iOS makes Google products push fewer ads and the difference in price is well worth it), it's just that the user - the European consumer - should be the one to opt in and not other way around: make him opt out; this goes in line of the evolution of EU legislation (look at cookies and GDPR implementations on every single site to better understand my point). Dude, I have proven that an iPhone - although more expensive - is cheaper to own than any Android flagship. Sure, there are a lot of variables, but that's another subject (I still prefer to use a 5s over a 2017 SD 4XX). The truth is, buying an XS today is more profitable than buying a Note 9.

31. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

No it isn't. And Google was an unknown just like Apple, and Apple had an almost 30 year headstart on Google. Yes, Android as a whole is bigger than Apple, bit no one Android OEM does the same business as Apple does. Samsung is the closest, but it's still not as high as Apple's sales are. Which is why component makers want Apple's business, because there's so much of it. That means a lot of money for them. It's not the same for Android because each OEM does their own thing. I don't have to be a minion (which is derogatory, look up the definition) to understand where they're coming from. Google certainly doesn't get everything right, and the not in the right in every situation. Yes it comes with some string, because they're a business, not a charity. They didn't offer their OS to OEMs because they're magnanimous, they did it to get their OS and their search in front of as many people as possible. Youre missing the biggest part of that, which is removing something that was always a given for Google, data mining. That's what they use to deliver targeted ads, and which is the largest source for Google's revenue. By removing that, they've taken away a large chunk of Google's revenue stream. So to compensate for that, Google will start charging for Playstore access. This isn't a rumor, there are articles where Google has outlined it's EU business model going forward. Yes, they did charge for parts of the OS before, but that money was a fraction of theoney they got from data mining and targeted ads, so this is their way toake up the difference. But that's your opinion. You're assuming that the iPhone has what everyone wants. For some it may, but it's not the universal solution for every single person. And toake your point you're comparing Apple's cheapest model with Samsung's highest? In some ways they're similar, but if you're going to compare models, compare them to similar products. Btw, the SD6xx series is also present in a lot of midrange devices, you don't have to drop down to the SD4xx series devices to get a decently priced phone.

32. Leo_MC

Posts: 6092; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

I don't think there were more than 2-3y since the first iPhone until Android - and by Android I mean Google - became the top player in mobile world. Google had at least 7 years to solve the update problem. You still don't get it: Google is so big and important in mobile world that it can afford to say "yo, OEM motherf**ker, if you don't update your phones in 2 minutes/h/days, I will block your sorry ass users out of Android ecosystem and they will f**k you up so fast and so bad that you will file for bankruptcy by the end of the week". Data mining in EU is forbidden unless the user is informed BEFORE purchasing/accessing a service and OPTS IN; also, EC's role is to make sure no company destroys the competition (Google had a period of time to conform and it didn't, so it got fined). We don't care how Google is making its money, as long as it obeys the rules of our market; it can charge the OEMs, it can charge the clients, it can charge everyone, it can give away everything for free - it's up too Google. 5s is a 5y old phone, SD 4XX is a 1 y old chip; the 4y old chip in iP 6 is somehow better than SD 6XX (with 6s chip being miles ahead this year's 660). So, if I were to buy a 5s today (which is ~120€ refurbished and almost new), I would still get a better phone than almost every under 200€ Android device (with very few exceptions); if I were to buy a 6s (which is ~350€ new), I would still get a better phone than any under 4-500€ Android (again with very few exceptions). Anyway you look at it, iPhone is (still) a smarter purchase (until Google manages to change things).

33. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

I'm not talking solely about phones. Apple has been doing hardware and software for almost 4 times as long as Google has. They've had much longer to perfect their system. And because they are as big as they are, they are subject to issue pertaining to monopolies. If they did as you said, they run the risk of governmental bodies crawling up their rear. And they can do serious dage to them, like say break up a company like alphabet into smaller companies that would have to rain separate. That's the price you pay when you become the dominant player in any industry, increase scrutiny and increased restraints placed on what you can and can't do. Customers opt in when they activate their phone with a Google account. It's in the agreement. The reason Google is switching gears now is because the EU wanted them to make the Playstore available regardless if the Android OEMs use their apps and services or not. Previously if you wanted access to the Playstore, you had to abide by Google's agreement, which required them to preload their apps andake Google the default search engine. So they compromised, they'll let them forgo installing their apps and being the default search, but now the OEMs have to pay for access to the Playstore. I'm not comparing the SD4XX or SD6xx to any Apple chips What I'm saying is that if someone goes with midrange device, they're not limited to the SD4XX chips. And since the the SD6XX chips are superior to the SD4xx chips, so if you're going to talk about value, it makes more sense to spotlight the device with the better hardware. No, you're looking at it from someone who is open to both platforms. If they're not open to iOS, then it doesn't matter how much of a supposedly better value something is, it's a non starter. If you hated Windows but someone said their devices were a much better value, would you switch? No, because noatter how great they are, you're still using something you dislike. And if you disregard that, for the price of a 1 year old iPhone, you can buy 2 midrange phones and have the same amount of support.

34. Leo_MC

Posts: 6092; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

Both Apple and Google started in mobile phone business at the exact same time, so I won't give Google this pathetic excuse. You're saying that the reason Google refused to make a system for timely updates was because it feared Government actions, while the same Google ignored for a few years EC warnings?! That's another pathetic excuse I won't buy. (btw, inform yourself about what happened in EU, because you say a lot of nonsense on the subject) I'n not saying you or anybody else should buy an iPhone (hell, I'm not even sure I'll buy one this year, because Max is a bit too big, XR doesn't have 3Dt and next year I believe we'll be seeing USB-c in phones) I'm just saying that, even though iPhones are more expensive to purchase, their cost is in fact very well connected to the benefits it brings.

35. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

So your pathetic excuse is that Apple handling hardware and software updates for 30 years prior to Google getting in the game is different because it wasn't mobile? There's literally almost no difference between the two, except one is more mobile, otherwise yeah nothing. No, the original reason Google didn't force OEMs was they weren't as powerful as they are now and needed their hardware partners to help grow Android. Then, with time they did make some moves, but nothing blatant like you're suggesting (take their Motorola purchase, which was a signal to Samsung that if they wanted to go on their own, Google was going to get more serious about their own hardware game). Now that they are the dominant player, they have to tiptoe because governmental regulators are looking at them more closely due to that dominant position. If they were even the #2 player they could get away with that. But once you hit number one, the rules change. Anyone who follows this industry knows that. It's not a pathetic excuse, it's reality. And they're not the only company who can claim that, the difference is others can claim the same for less money.

36. Leo_MC

Posts: 6092; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Mac OS (and by that I mean any OS for the Mac) has a certain update policy; when Apple launched iOS, it also created a totally different update policy. I don't care about excuses, I only care about results. Is Google update system - for every phone that is running Android - just as efficient as Apple's? No. Than Google either doesn't give a s**t about its customers, either it couldn't build a better system. It would be absolutely no problem if Google would block the access to its Play Store for any device that runs a version of Android that is not Pie ("Android is open source, you have the toolkit to build apps so build your own damn store, if you want to run Oreo") but Google doesn't care about that so just own this s**t and live with it.

37. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

So for Apple to have more experience with hardware and software updates, it must be EXACTLY the same for the experience to be relevant? No I'm sorry, that isn't the case. Sure, there's a learning curve when moving to a new product, but it's not the same as someone who's never done it before. So you don't think Apple's experience with iOS and Mac are comparable but now you wanna compare iOS and Android? And if you think Apple actually gives a s**t about it's customers, I've got a bridge to sell you. They "care" because it looks good and sells products. If it didn't, they wouldn't. And again, because of Google's dominant position due to their market share, they are subject to greater scrutiny and stiffer penalites because of it. They can't just do anything they want to. I don't know if you're in denial or are willfully overlooking this. Ask anyone what being the dominant player in an industry means, and you'll hear about this. Hell, Google it!

38. Leo_MC

Posts: 6092; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

Yes, it must be. Palm had more experience than Google and it failed to deliver, so did Symbian and even Microsoft. Some did a better job than Google, some worse, some survived and some failed but none of them had any problem with the carriers, with governments, with manufacturers or any other imaginary excuses you have found for the bad Android update system. This article is not about Apple and its customers, it is about Google and its customers; don't deflect and own the s**t that are happening in Android world, if you care to have a better product. If not, find more excuses and blame everything on anybody else but the real guilty party. Google is not dominant, Android is and that is a biiiig difference. I'm out!

39. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

You're assessment of the situation is overlooking a lot of issues. Palm had a lot going for it, but had poor marketing and even worse hardware. Symbian was the dominant player for years, but failed to adapt to the changing smartphone landscape. And Microsoft had a combination of those issues (marketing and failure to adapt). Most of them were beholden to carriers, and Symbian existed in places were most governments had tighter control of the industry and stricter consumer protection laws than what exists in the US. Here the OEMs can pretty much do what they want in terms of support. My first reply wasn't about the article, the person I was replying to brought Apple into the conversation that you then insterted yourself into. And the fact of the matter is that the 2 situations aren't the same. Android is the dominant OS, iOS isn't, which means Apple doesn't have the same amount of governmental oversight telling them what they can and can't do. Android has multiple hardware partners, Apple is just Apple. There is no managing to be done on iOS becaise there's only one company to deal with, themselves. Android has multiple hardware partners each looking to beat each other out for dominance and secure profits. One of the ways to do that is sell more products, and supporting older devices doesn't translate to that like selling more devices does. That problem along with governmental oversight that hamstrings what Google can and can't do is why they're in the situation they are. Because of their OS's dominant postition, Google is limited by laws that prohibits them from using their dominant position to force other companies to bend to their will. That's their to protect companies with lower influence. Correct, but Android is Google's OS that they have to manage. And since their OS is dominant, governments hold Google responsible for what happens with their OS. They don't hold the hardware partners accountable in regards to monopolistic practices, because it's not their OS, they're just using it. They hold the company that manages Android accountable for said practices, which is Google. Bye!

40. Leo_MC

Posts: 6092; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

Dude, I don't give a crap about reading excuses, I only care about the companies that are able to deliver what I need. Right now Google fails to deliver some important aspects, so I only consider it as a secondary option. It's as simple as that. On iOS I have timely updates (I also have the best performance out of a phone, I don't have ads, my personal data is protected; I admit I have a lot of things missing, but none that I can't live without), so why, giving the fact that Note or Mate 20 - which are the best that Android has to offer - are just as expensive as Max, should I chose Google ecosystem?

41. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

Calling facts excuses doesn't make it so. I mean I can't tell everyone you can actually sit their and completely ignore reality, but I guess that works for some people. I never said iOS wasn't the best choice for YOU, in fact I even said I wouldn't try and convince people to switch to something else if they liked iOS. I was giving reasons that people, other people would go with Android, and how the differences weren't that great. But you just had to prove that iOS is the best for everyone without knowing anything about them. Again, you like iOS, great for YOU, but it's not the best choice for everyone.

42. Leo_MC

Posts: 6092; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

Dude, until you have mentioned iOS I have never said a word about Apple; even after you have dragged it into the discussion the second time I didn't say anything about it until you started to post negative opinions about what Apple does and, if you read my messages, you can see I only set things straight. On this article I am talking about updates and Google. If you are ok with having your phone updated after more than 3 (usually more than 6 or even 12 months), it's your choice; I am not and, because I use Android, I want this s**t to be fixed. Again: I don't give a flying f**k on excuses; Google is big enough to make it right TODAY!!!, if only it would want to.

43. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

The first post in this entire thread, the one I replied to, compared Google and Apple. Learn to read! My God, enough. Look into monopoly and business laws and see what I'm talking about! It's right there!

44. Leo_MC

Posts: 6092; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

You might have done that, but I have not mentioned Apple until you posted a (dumb) opinion about that company. It's useless to talk to you about monopoly as long as you have no idea how to interpret the notions.

45. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

It was the subject of the conversation before you started. It doesn't matter when mentioned it, don't blame me for your lack of reading comprehension. That should be my line.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.