18 months guaranteed updates? If you're not going to guarantee Apple-like longevity why would you even do it, period? I'm sure MS would like to get that level of support but if they don't want to bet on it why not just have everyone live in ignorance?
18 months is a hell of a lot better than the 0 months you get with many android-based devices (or, effectively, negative months with 2.1 released devices).
Why would average person want a major OS upgrade for their phone? I can understand a minor update (Bug fix etc). But do I really want my Phone OS to be updated (yes as a developer but no as a user)?
When 'new' features are advertised, many people like to use them.
"You can do XYZ on your Android, except not the one you bought brand new last month because it's really 23 months old already. To use XYZ, you'll need to shell out another $x00 vs just getting a software download".
Google allowing device manufacturers to even have a hand in deciding who gets updates and when is... crazy. The damage that can and will do to the Android brand over time is immense. The biggest 'value' most people see in Android is "not Apple", which isn't really a long term viable competitive position to take. MS has (and has had for some time) an opp to eat away at the "anything but apple" smartphone crowd, and they'll be taking share away from Android.
With similar difficulties that Android has - ie, the handset manufacturers being part of the update process - another question is, how long after an OS update is posted will it take to see it on all devices?
Will some arrive in days or weeks, while others linger for months? Will Nokia be given preferential treatment?
