Motorola can’t beat Samsung without software updates

In general, I like Motorola’s approach to Android. I like that HelloUX still has a strong relationship with Google. I choose the Razr Plus (2024) over Samsung’s Galaxy Z Flip 6 for several reasons, including the cover screen, bright colors, and pleasantly rounded frame.

Motorola is showing even more ambition to improve wired charging, improve camera setups, and increase manufacturing quality to help it compete with Google and Samsung at every level from budget to flagship. However, there is one factor that will cause Motorola to fall behind its closest rival. That’s a commitment to software updates that won’t be acceptable in 2024.

Perhaps the best way to explain my problem with Motorola (and how it relates to Samsung) is to formulate a simple hypothesis. Suppose you have $200 and need to choose between two phones. Both have a 50MP primary camera, 6.5-inch display, headphone jack, and expandable storage, but one will cost you $150 and the other will cost you the full $200. For now, there isn’t much of a difference between the two, but why is the price of one so high? Eventually, you get to the software section of the spec sheet and suddenly everything starts to make sense.

One phone (a cheap phone) will receive only one Android update, while the other will have 4 phones with 5 years worth of security patches. ​It is determined. Everything else being the same, I would choose the second phone every time. If so, you’re right to reach for Samsung’s entry-level Galaxy A15 5G instead of Motorola’s Moto G Play (2024). To be honest, there are many other differences that differentiate the two phones, but I don’t think any of them add as much value as long-term software support.

When you have some limitations on the hardware you can put into an affordable Android smartphone, the phone’s lifetime suddenly becomes incredibly valuable. With the Moto G Play (2024), you’ll effectively spend $149 in just over a year. The entire budget goes into one software update that updates the smartphone to Android 14. Android 14 is the version of Android that came out a few months before the smartphone was launched. At that point, if you pay about $12.50 a month for that one update, your phone is almost complete. The Moto G Play (2024) is already running Android 14 after less than a year on the market, so it’s set to be discontinued before its second birthday.

The Galaxy A15 5G, on the other hand, asks you to pay $200 to use the phone for at least four years. This equates to approximately $4.15 per month, or $50 per major Android update. No matter how you look at it, it’s better value. Considering the fact that Samsung’s entry-level devices start with Android 14 rather than Android 13, this is kind of like getting extra support for free. If that’s not enough, Samsung also announced the Galaxy A16 5G. It improves on the Galaxy A15 5G, has six years of updates instead of four, and is cheaper over its lifetime.

So when someone asks me to recommend a cheap Android smartphone, I always tell them to buy a Samsung smartphone. I tell them I like Motorola’s software better, I like the design, I like the image processing better, but I can’t recommend a phone with such a limited shelf life. If you have a little more money, you can buy a Pixel A device with similar software and the best image processing capabilities (Pixel 8a comes with 7 years of Android updates). On top of that, even if you get a Motorola phone that promises decent updates (and maybe comes with 3 years of Android support if you’re lucky), those updates will be delivered. Point out to them that they shouldn’t expect that. Hurry up.

The Moto G Play (2024) was the phone that peaked my disappointment, but it wasn’t the first Motorola phone to let me down with a lack of updates. Sure, it’s fair to expect budget phones to take a backseat to flagships as we wait for the latest versions of Android, but Motorola doesn’t seem to be in a hurry with those versions either. . For example, the Motorola Razr Plus (2023) was my favorite foldable phone this year. Probably one of my favorite phones. I like Motorola’s approach to the cover screen. We also liked that the Razr Plus (2023) arrived without some of the bloatware that plagued the company’s budget phones. I also liked how the design felt fresh and fun when compared to the buttoned-up Galaxy Z. Flip 5. At the time of launch, it didn’t matter that the phone had Android 13 because Android 14 hadn’t been released yet.

Then Android 14 came out. At least Google and Samsung now have Android 14. While Motorola’s closest rivals brought the latest versions of Android to their flagship-grade devices by the end of 2023, my beloved Razr Plus roared into the new year with the same software it launched with. My Razr Plus received Android 14 just as winter passed away like spring, and just as the beginning of summer began. Unfortunately, for a small flip phone that could do that, I had already moved on. Motorola had already announced the latest Razr, Razr (2024) and Razr Plus (2024). My SIM has found a new home in my phone, which is already running Android 14.

Well, this time I’m using Android 15 and I find myself playing the same waiting game. So far, I have received the update on my Google Pixel 9 Pro, and both the Galaxy Z Flip 6 and Razr Plus (2024) are confirmed to have received the update. We don’t know when either update will arrive. If Motorola and Samsung follow the same schedule as before, I’ll be running One UI 7 on my Galaxy Z Flip 6 by Christmas, and I’ll be getting the latest version of Hello UX on my Razr Plus in time for Christmas. It will be. What comes next?

Of course, the biggest issue with Motorola’s delayed approach to updates isn’t what it means for the first update, but what it means for the rest. Eventually, older phones will be relegated to the same update schedule as budget phones. Updates will continue to come, but you’ll get them when you get them. You may have spent $1,000 on a new flip phone a year ago, but you’ll have to wait until Motorola prepares an update for those who paid $1,000 for a flip phone this year. Waiting 11 months for Android 14 means waiting another 13 months for Android 15, then another 15 months for Android 16, all updates. Yes, it has been receiving updates for four years, but faster updates could have allowed additional Android versions to slide in the same amount of time.

Sure, Samsung does the same thing to some degree. Old flagships will eventually take a backseat to newer products, with Galaxy AI features starting at the top and trickling down. However, when the first significant update comes just a few months after the latest OS launch, it’s hard to get upset about some slippage over time. Maybe 3 months with Android 15, 4 months with Android 16, 6 months with Android 17, but still Motorola is preparing Android 14 to be the best phone in years. It’s faster than it took. I’d like to use the Razr Plus, but I need to recommend a phone that will keep me up to date until I’m ready to buy a new device, and Motorola doesn’t do that.

Even if Motorola can’t match Samsung in terms of update longevity and frequency, the problem should be easy to fix, right? Just add a few more updates, deploy faster, and you’re done. Well, the reality is not so simple. At least there’s a lot more to consider than updates. Even if Motorola doubles the amount of updates it promises for the Moto G Play (2024), it’s really just adding Android 15 to the schedule. It’s an improvement, but not a huge improvement. The Moto G Play (2024) launched with Android 13, so adding another update will make your phone obsolete before your first birthday obsolete by a little after your first birthday. However, you don’t get much value for your money. You can probably keep your phone for two years, but it will still be on the market before too long.

Instead, Motorola (and perhaps some other brands that promise updates without issue) needs to rethink how Android updates work. Android 14 should not be recognized as an endpoint on a phone launched on Android 13. In particular, it should not be launched long after the previous version was already available. Motorola has to either guarantee fast updates across the board for multiple years or skip updates here and there. If the Moto G Play (2024) had launched with Android 13 and promised to deliver Android 15 by skipping Android 14 or simply not counting it as an update, I wouldn’t have bothered. Sure, it will be outdated for a few months, but the urgent delivery of Android 15 will quickly add even more value to a very simple smartphone.

Another way Motorola could rethink Android updates would be to stop imposing hard limits on Android updates. Rather than saying your phone will get two major updates and three years of security support, it’s better to promise a minimum number and leave the door open for more support. For example, Apple doesn’t put a limit on the number of iOS updates that the latest iPhones receive, and updates are delivered every year and eventually stop receiving them. Of course, there are optimizations that allow Apple to do that, such as controlling both chipset and iOS development, but Motorola can do something similar on a smaller scale. The Moto G Play’s Snapdragon 480 certainly won’t last six years of updates, nor will you want a 4G-only phone in 2030, but it can certainly manage multiple features.

I don’t think this is overkill, even if it adds a small extra cost to Motorola’s phone. Samsung launched quite a few Galaxy A devices with the promise of three Android updates and four years of security support, with more to come later. Google has extended the update period from three years for the Pixel 6a to seven years for the Pixel 8a, despite the lack of expectations for the flagship model. Motorola doesn’t need to go that far, but it needs to do something before I recommend its phones over those of its closest competitors.