> For Apple, updates often mean some subset of the full operating system updates, or a crippled version. Whereas Google updates tend to be all of nothing - meaning if your phone does get the update, it gets all of the features of that particular version.

Eh? Aren't you swapping something here? On Apple you get OS updates with nearly all features for at least 5 years, of course they can't create a NFC device into a phone that doesn't ship with one... I would love to see _any_ Android phone with support for 5 years, that does not come from google directly. it would be a no brainer if something exists in the 200-300€ range. because I don't care which phone I have, it just needs to be long liveable and have a price below 400€. currently I use used iPhones, which I get relativly cheap.

I think he's pointing out a vital difference in update paradigms here. Taking an example of an update that added NFC processing to a phone, iOS devices would get the update even if NFC were the only feature in it and their device didn't support NFC (and that feature would just be turned off or "crippled"). Android users, on the other hand, just wouldn't get the update at all.

In reality, what we see is a bunch of features bundled together into a single update. If one of those features is NFC functionality, iOS phones will get that update minus NFC (and any other features their hardware doesn't support), while Android phones often just won't get that update at all if any of the features (e.g. NFC) aren't supported by the hardware. This also explains, in a basic sense, why iOS devices get updates for longer periods, while Android devices "fall off" or aren't promised updates for as long.

There's, of course, pros and cons to each of these update strategies, as many times it becomes "mandatory" to update (for security updates, to get maintenance/support, to get some other necessary features, etc), and iOS-style updates have historically been too much for device memory/processing/resources to handle (effectively making the phone so slow you're required to buy a new one[1]), while Androids not getting the update at all also requires you to buy a new one.

Neither approach is foolproof, but I think that's what he's referring to by "Google updates tend to be all or nothing" and "Apple updates often mean some subset of the full operating system updates, or a crippled version".

[1] There's enough resources out there that no single one tells the whole story, but there's plenty at https://www.google.me/search?q=ios+update+made+phone+unusabl... and at least one previous class action lawsuit over iOS updates rendering phones "inoperably slow".

No, Apple updates include the full operating system update. The only time features are disabled is when they require hardware that doesn't exist (e.g. you have no finger print reader so you can't use your finger print reader) or they are too intensive for the phones CPU/GPU. That's it. Apple's propensity for hardware accelerators may make this seem like it's crippling (Eg: there is a voice recognition hardware accelerator on Apple CPUs, IIRC) and people may not know why, but Apple does not use crippling software as a strategy to force upgrades-- as you seem to be implying.

I think they do. The original iPhone never got MMS support for alleged hardware reasons that were bunk. Siri was originally on the AppStore but once bought by Apple suddenly couldn't run on anything less than an iPhone 4S. There are probably other examples but those are the two I remember.

I’m fine with receiving years and years of security updates. I paid for the features I got. Anything new is a bonus. But an up to date secure OS is non-negotiable.

If it's non-negotiable for you, you have a choice: Google phones or Apple phones. Everything else is out, unless you want to try your luck with stuff like LineageOS and hope that they support your device for whatever timeframe you consider reasonable.

Well I don't consider Google's collection of my data to be a secure practice from the standpoint of my privacy. So the one remaining option is Apple.

There's also Copperhead OS. (You pay quite a bit for the privilege of security though.)

> For Apple, updates often mean some subset of the full operating system updates, or a crippled version.

A bit harsh, no? If new software requires hardware, why should that be considered "crippled"?

I find amazing that my 2013 iPhone5 can play games (Hearthstone) that some 2015/2016 Androids can't.

> If new software requires hardware, why should that be considered "crippled"?

Because I do not own that hardware, so for me uses the software is effectively crippled. I don't care why, only the outcome matters.

I wouldnt even mind not getting new features so much, but this also effectively means that my security updates are tied to new hardware; how is that acceptable?

What iOS update only included security updates based on hardware features?