Android upgrade report card: Grading the manufacturers on Marshmallow

All right, gang: With Google’s still-pseudonymous Android “N” release on the horizon, it’s time to start thinking about upgrades — specifically, which manufacturers you can actually trust to provide ’em in a timely and reliable manner.

This is the prime time to think about that always-loaded topic. We’ve just hit the point where we’re six months past the launch of the most recent major Android release, Android 6.0 Marshmallow — and that gives us an ideal opportunity to step back and look at the big picture of how the various device-makers are faring when it comes to getting the software into consumers’ hands.

Now, let’s be fair: No one can predict the future. And a company’s priorities can certainly evolve over time. But looking at a manufacturer’s current performance with upgrades can give you a good general idea of how it tends to approach the area and what kind of commitment it tends to have to ongoing support.

That sort of knowledge is invaluable ammo when it comes to future Android purchasing decisions. The platform’s open nature means manufacturers (and anyone else) can modify the software as they see fit — and that, of course, means it inevitably falls upon each company’s shoulders to process each OS update and roll it out to its own devices.

And while Google’s ongoing deconstruction of Android and introduction of standalone monthly security patches has helped make OS upgrades less all-important than they once were, there are still significant foundational improvements that only a full OS upgrade can provide. Timely ongoing upgrades aren’t everything, by any means — but they are without a doubt a significant and valid factor to consider.

So arm yourself with knowledge: It’s time to see who’s making the grade and who’s coming up short.

(Feel free to read over the following box if you’re interested in the nitty-gritty of how these grades were calculated — or just jump down to the grades if you want to get right to the good stuff.)

(One last side note: You may notice that Sony, which has been present in past report cards, is missing from this year’s analysis. That’s because Sony is no longer an even remotely relevant player in the U.S. smartphone market, and so it no longer made sense to treat it as such and include it in this lineup. BlackBerry, on the other hand, is a major player making a major play for American consumers, and so I’ve added it into the mix in order to provide important perspective for potential consumers about its handling of OS upgrades. Most of the other newer niche players are focusing on the budget realm in the States as of now, meanwhile, and consequently are not included in this flagship-focused report.)

Google

• Length of time for upgrade to reach current flagship: 0 days (60/60 points)
• Length of time for upgrade to reach previous-gen flagship: 0 days (30/30 points)
• Communication: Mediocre (5/10 points)

Google isn’t technically an Android smartphone manufacturer, but as the driving force behind the Nexus line of devices and the sole provider of upgrades for those devices, it serves the same practical role for the purposes of this list.

Google is also a bit unusual in that its current flagships at the time of Marshmallow’s debut — the Nexus 5X and Nexus 6P — actually shipped with Android 6.0 already loaded. Since that’s a core benefit of buying a current Nexus device, I thought it made sense to consider that a “zero day” upgrade for our purposes.

At least some owners of Google’s previous-gen flagship, 2014’s Nexus 6, started receiving the Android 6.0 upgrade on October 5th — the same day the software was officially released. Google infamously rolls out updates “in waves,” which means some people end up waiting days or even weeks longer than others — a deliberate process designed to minimize the risk of unexpected bugs or issues affecting large groups of users before they can be identified and addressed — but the start of a rollout is what we consider for our measuring purposes.

The Nexus 6 was also a bit unusual (for a Nexus device) in that it was sold via carriers in addition to being sold directly from Google — something that invariably leads to some level of complication and delay. Not surprisingly, many users with carrier-specific variants of the phone ended up waiting an extra month or two to get the Marshmallow update.

The real issue there — and it’s one we’ve seen with Google’s rollouts before, both with and without carriers present as a complicating factor — is that Google’s communication could stand to be better. Following its initial announcement of a general rollout beginning for Nexus devices, Google didn’t provide much else in terms of official info about its process. That means those users who were waiting were essentially in the dark, with no sign of the upgrade and no idea what was going on or how long the wait might be.

Between its less-than-stellar communication and the frustrations that sometimes result from its staged rollout process, Google’s Nexus devices are by no means perfect when it comes to OS upgrades. They are, however, still without question the most reliable way to receive ongoing updates in a timely, if not always immediate, manner.

HTC

• Length of time for upgrade to reach current flagship: 80 days (49.2/60 points)
• Length of time for upgrade to reach previous-gen flagship: 59 days (26.7/30 points)
• Communication: Excellent (10/10 points)

HTC’s story with Marshmallow is eerily similar to its story with Lollipop last year — which is to say that it’s doing pretty darn well and continuing to make impressive improvements to its upgrade delivery time. Once again, though, there’s still room for the company to get better.

HTC’s unlocked version of its One M9 — the current flagship at the time of Lollipop’s release — started to receive Android 6.0 on December 23. Though the carrier-connected models of the device didn’t start their rollouts until early February (just like last year), the unlocked M9 was readily available for purchase from HTC in the States and so its rollout counts as the first time the software became available to U.S. consumers. (Given the option, going with a carrier-connected phone model is rarely the best choice for speedy OS upgrades — or maximum financial value.)

The previous-gen flagship, the One M8, somehow fared even better than its younger brother: The unlocked model of that phone (which was also available for direct sale to U.S. consumers) started to receive Android 6.0 on December 2, just under two months after Marshmallow’s release.

As we’ve come to expect as of late, HTC’s communication was outstanding all throughout the process. The company has established a detailed and frequently updated software update status page on which you can see the exact state of progress for any specific model and variation and can also get a clear overview of what steps are involved with every part of the process. In addition to maintaining that resource, HTC does a commendable job of providing regular updates on its progress for all models via Twitter.

While its turnaround time could stand to be faster, the fact that HTC continuously keeps its customers in the loop on what exactly’s happening, why things are being delayed when they are, and when they’ll get back on track goes a long way in making the process feel tolerable.

It’s safe to say that HTC has firmly established itself as the second-only-to-Nexus manufacturer of choice for reliable OS upgrades — a valuable distinction to hold for a company in its position. If it can keep up the trend of speeding up its process more with every passing year, it’ll solidify that standing and make second place seem like even less of a compromise.

LG

• Length of time for upgrade to reach current flagship: 80 days (49.2/60 points)
• Length of time for upgrade to reach previous-gen flagship: 135 days (21.6/30 points)
• Communication: Poor (0/10 points)

LG has traditionally been terrible when it comes to Android upgrade reliability, but it’s definitely gotten better bit by bit in recent years. That being said, of course, it’s all relative.

Just like it did with the 5.0 update last year, LG actually got Android 6.0 out to some of its flagship phones quite quickly this go-round. Quickly enough, in fact, to serve as fodder for marketing-friendly bragging rights (again) about being the “first” to roll out the software. But rushing out Marshmallow in what was effectively a small-scale single-country soak test isn’t the same as actually getting it into the hands of most consumers (or into the hands of any consumers in the U.S., which is what we’re measuring).

Marshmallow first hit the G4 in the States on December 23, when the Sprint model of the phone saw its rollout begin. (The update was technically announced on the 17th, but the first user reports of delivery didn’t happen until a few days later.) T-Mobile’s model trailed in a good while after that, in early February, followed soon by AT&T and Verizon’s versions of the phone. LG doesn’t sell unlocked versions of its phones in the U.S., so there’s no carrier-free option available to speed things up.

The previous-gen G3, meanwhile, got its taste of Lollipop in the States starting on February 16 with the Verizon model. (Other carrier models are still waiting.)

Aside from the poky previous-gen flagship performance, what hurts LG the most is its complete and utter lack of communication: Following its self-serving “Hey, look what we did in Poland!” press release, LG stayed mum throughout its entire upgrade process — providing no real information to its customers about the state of its rollout or when the software might reach different devices.

All in all, it’s not a situation worth celebrating. And unfortunately, things only get worse — much worse — from here.

NEXT PAGE: Motorola, Samsung, and BlackBerry

Motorola (Lenovo)

• Length of time for upgrade to reach current flagship: 65 days (51.6/60 points)
• Length of time for upgrade to reach previous-gen flagship: 74 days for the unlocked model — though with all U.S. carrier models abandoned (0/30 points)
• Communication: Poor (0/10 points)

An Android manufacturer has never fallen as fast and hard as what we’ve seen with Motorola these past couple years. In a matter of months, Moto went from being the shining example of what an Android device-maker should be to being a bitter disappointment Android fans won’t soon forgive. (So much for that “nothing will change” transition in ownership, right?)

Following last year’s 65% “D” grade for Android upgrades, the Lenovo-owned Motorola gets a big fat embarrassing “F” for the mess it made of this year’s Marshmallow rollout. While it did do a reasonably decent (though nowhere near the standard it had maintained in the past) job at getting Android 6.0 out to its current and previous-gen flagships, it did so with one major asterisk: the outright abandonment of all U.S. carrier models of its barely-one-year-old 2014 device.

Worse yet, Motorola stayed insultingly silent on the subject, without so much as an explanation — let alone any sort of attempt to make things right with customers who had bought into its “ongoing reliable upgrades” message. It was a slap in the face to those who trusted the company, and even if Motorola recovers and manages to do decently well moving forward, it’s an incident smartphone shoppers would be wise to remember.

Samsung

• Length of time for upgrade to reach current flagship: 158 days (39.6/60 points) for Galaxy S6; 152 days (39.6/60 points) for Galaxy Note 5
• Length of time for upgrade to reach previous-gen flagship: Still waiting (0/30 points) for Galaxy S5; 172 days (18.6/30 points) for Galaxy Note 4
• Communication: Poor (0/10 points)

Samsung has two phones that are essentially equal in flagship status: the Galaxy S and the Galaxy Note. So for its score, I measured performance for both lines of devices and then averaged the figures together.

The results — well, they ain’t great: Sammy took a full 158 days to get Marshmallow out to its then-current flagship, the Galaxy S6, which first saw the software in the U.S. via the Sprint model on March 10. (Verizon got the rollout almost a month later, at the start of April, while customers on other carriers are still waiting.) The then-current Note 5 flagship was in the same league, with Android 6.0 hitting the Verizon version on March 4 (and Sprint’s version a few days later, with other models still on hold). No matter how you look at it, five-plus months is way too long for a current flagship to get a major OS upgrade.

But wait — there’s more! Things are even worse with the previous-gen flagship, where Samsung took a whopping 172 days to get Android 6.0 to its Note 4 in America (via the Sprint model, which alone received the software on March 24) and still has yet to get Marshmallow onto any U.S. Galaxy S5 phone.

(Samsung, like LG, does not officially offer unlocked models of its phones to consumers in the States — which is a shame, as its devices did experience faster rollouts internationally. Well, to a degree, anyway: Even the unlocked Galaxy S6 didn’t see Marshmallow until mid-February, more than four months after the software’s release.)

Adding insult to injury, Samsung seems to have a policy of keeping its customers completely in the dark about its upgrade plans and progress. Once upon a time, the company did actually provide detailed info about that stuff — but after it repeatedly failed to keep up with its promises (and, ahem, received a fair amount of negative publicity for the way it handled those failures), Samsung sealed its corporate lips firmly shut. And it’s kept ’em glued closed ever since.

It’s too bad, because while Samsung’s sales numbers may be strong, the company’s commitment to ongoing support is steadily slipping from bad to just plain awful. And its customers are the ones who are suffering.

BlackBerry

• Length of time for upgrade to reach current flagship: Still waiting (0/90 points)
• Length of time for upgrade to reach previous-gen flagship: n/a (not factored into score; current flagship adjusted to 90% of total due to lack of a previous-gen model)
• Communication: Poor (0/10 points)

BlackBerry’s first Android phone actually landed in November — a full month after Marshmallow’s launch and nearly six months after the release of Google’s Android 6.0 developer preview. That makes it all the more baffling that the Priv not only launched with a year-old operating system in place but still to this day continues to run on 2014’s Android 5.x Lollipop software.

On top of that, BlackBerry has spent most of the time since its phone’s release staying silent about its plans for a Marshmallow upgrade. The company’s CEO finally broke the silence during a press presentation at CES in January (what a way to communicate with customers, eh?), in which — take a deep breath and try to read this next part out loud without pausing — he delivered the news that the news about the update would be delivered sometime in the first quarter of 2016. (Hooray?)

Just this week, meanwhile, BlackBerry announced a “private beta” for a small group of users to test Marshmallow on the Priv. In April. Of 2016. One day shy of Marshmallow’s six-month anniversary. Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeah.

Look: BlackBerry has done a commendable job of getting Google’s monthly security patches out to its Android phone quickly, and there’s something to be said about the significance of that. When it comes to actual OS updates, though, it’s hard to look at BlackBerry’s first year as an Android manufacturer as anything but a gigantic failure.

Some closing thoughts

The best way to sum this up, I think, is to borrow a line from my 2015 Lollipop report card conclusion: We can — and should — do better.

But you know what? At the end of the day, that’s not up to us. You and I can’t control what manufacturers do or how much of a priority they make timely and ongoing software support. All we can do is educate ourselves about their practices, decide how much that matters to us, and then make our future purchasing decisions accordingly.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: With Android’s open nature and the level of diversity that allows, Android OS upgrades are never going to be completely consistent across all devices. That’s par for the course. I often say that Android presents you with a lot of choices, and if quick and regular upgrades are important to you, you most certainly can have them. You just have to choose a phone that provides that type of experience.

Nexus devices continue to be the most reliable (if occasionally imperfect) options; if you were to make any comparison to iOS, they’d be the closest equivalents to iPhones in that their software is controlled and updated solely by Google. It’s a holistic arrangement, and the end result speaks for itself.

But continuing its trend from last year, HTC is looking increasingly good as a reliable second-tier option. Its upgrades aren’t nearly as immediate as Google’s, as you’d expect, but they’re relatively quick and getting quicker each year — and the company is continuing to make it clear that post-sales support is something it’s taking very seriously.

As for everyone else, what can you say? Regardless of who’s to blame, there’s no excuse for keeping customers in the dark for months while flagship phones sit idle. We can optimistically hope the even earlier release of this year’s Android “N” preview will help to some degree, but ultimately, it’s up to each manufacturer to decide what level of resources it wants to devote to the upgrade process and how it wants to treat customers along the way.

The one bit of reassuring news is that as always, the power is completely in your hands. We may not be able to make manufacturers do better, but we can make ourselves educated consumers — and then avoid down-the-road disappointment by making the right buying decisions for our own personal needs.